If my opinions don't matter, why should I bother voting or using this site? If mods are simply just going to overrule me and replace my opinion with their own, it's an enormous waste of time and they should be the only ones voting. I read the entire debate, and formed my own subjective opinion. I then, explained my opinion, from my perspective. I'm sorry you found it inadequate, but it was not a two sentence vote. I put effort into explaining why I disagreed. After being interrogated for my own opinion, in the comments section, I continued to explain and defend my view using sources such as DM Murdock (scroll down in the comments to my last one). I felt my vote was sufficient in it's point, but nonetheless I continued to defend it in the comments. I'm sorry we disagree, but that's the nature of debates, and I find this to be a selective abuse of power. I will not be recasting my vote, or continuing the use of this site as I feel my efforts can be better spent elsewhere. Respectfully, KS.
They are clearly an isolated group of individuals that are segregated from others by God as his chosen people above all others (deut 7:6). They are also the oracles of God's word and many other things. Regardless of any additional roles or responsibilities, they are clearly recognized by God differently from others.
For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath "chosen" thee to be a "special people" unto himself, "above all people" that are upon the face of the earth.
This is one example.. But there are numerous other inferences and suggestions that would imply that's the case. Romans 3 is one example stating Jews are the oracles of his knowledge, further suggesting nepotism.
Thanks bro. It was a good debate!! I had a lot of fun! Sorry, if you took anything offensively, I definitely was NOT trying to be mean or offensive.. Debates sometimes get a little a heated! You did a great job though! It was fun :)
Ya, I'm not really sure where it fits either.. I'm on the fence with this currently. The more I think about it, the more I teeter back and forth haha. It's definitely an interesting topic..
Are you familiar with the Friedmann equations and Hubble's Law? Long story short, it shows our universe (space essentially) is expanding. It's calculated with recessional velocity.
If you're skeptical about space being between things, how would you explain light arcing around a gravitational curve in space? The bend in space actually stretches space (and light); it's demonstrated in spectral line displacements from red shifted light.
I agree that space may not have a tangible "mass", or whatever you'd want to call it, but it does directly interact and impact things contained within it. To me, this makes it a Type 1 existence because it exists and interacts with reality.
I agree and ....slightly..... disagree. I do concede it's a "gray" area/topic, and I'm not entirely sure where I stand on it, yet. That's why I threw it out there to pick your brain..
So I can't physically "grab" you a piece of space, but space does have a direct affect on things that I can grab you, like particles. For example, as space expands outwards, it displaces the spectral lines in electromagnetic radiation as it travels across it; it can also bend light as it travels through gravitational curves. Because space has a direct impact on particles, which do have physicality, I would argue it must exist, even though I cannot cut a piece off. It has real observable affects in reality.
I agree with @wrick here.. He should have the ability to cast HIS vote without being molested or interrogated for it. I'm thankful that he chose my side to fall on, but I would have no hard feelings if he chose yours - it's his opinion. @Mel and others choose to side with you. I'm not upset with them or holding a grudge because they have a different opinion than me. Nor am I interrogating them demanding justification for their opinion. I said what I had to say in the debate, and they are welcome to form whatever opinion they want from that. What you're doing I find childish, disrespectful and unprofessional.
I have to say, it's rather childish and unprofessional to cry in comments and attack people for their vote when it disagrees with your own opinion. The entire purpose of voting is to get other peoples opinions on it. You don't see me on here attacking @mel for voting against me. It's his opinion, and even if I disagree with it, he's entitled to it.
Where does space fall in here? It's physical, because it has affects on physical things (like red-shifting light). It has particles in it, but space itself is not made of particles. Thoughts?
You're going to have to be more specific about "why" DM Murdock's claims are wrong, aside from the fact that you just say so. I can't comment on the Atlantis press stuff, because I am unaware of the drama you're referring to; however, a press not publishing something does nothing to lend to the validity of her work or support your case.
In her book "Suns of God", she clearly believes the Josephus passage you are referring to, specifically, is also an interpolation. There are many other scholars who also are mixed regarding it's validity, and the other Christ passage written by Josephus was an obvious forgery. The totality of this makes it a bad source. Considering you knew all this and still used it, that's why you lost the conduct point from my perspective. If you are going to sneak in a highly suspicious source, you could have at least been open about it and written details about it arguing why you believe it is valid.
I'm open to evidence, I don't care either way if it's true or not. In fact, I'd find it more interesting if it were demonstrably true, because I'm a Jesus mythicist. Even if Josephus did truly write it, and DM is wrong, it doesn't prove Jesus's existence because it's still not contemporary being that it was written around 90-100 AD.
If you disagree with me, that's fine - we can agree to disagree. I was just giving you my honest evaluation.
Below is an article written by DM regarding this specific subject:
What about denominations who are pro LGBT? One example I can think of is Lutheranism (there are plenty others). They have sub denominations on both sides of LGBT. If you are a Christian who belongs to the pro LGBT side, you'd never "always run the risk" of condemning homosexuals, because it's not a stance taken by that version of Christianity.
Generalizing Christians as "anti homosexuals" seems very similar to me generalizing Christians into believing in Jesus's death, resurrection & ascension; mine I would argue is even more imperative since it's the basis of Christianity.
That being said, I totally agree with you regarding the homosexual stuff and compliment you on your arguments.
I absolutely agree with you and your points, but aren't you making the same generalization you ridiculed me for making in my previous debate?
You are essentially saying "all Christians condemn homosexually, etc", and this would be inclusive to all individuals who confess themselves as Christian.
My argument was not based in any way on fundamentalism; it was actually the opposite. I stripped Christian doctrine down to it's most primal form.
It was only based on the core tenants, specifically the death, resurrection & ascension of Jesus. If they do not believe this, then I would not label them as Christian. It's like a person who decided that 1 + 1 = 3, yet still assumes the label of a mathematician. They made up a new version of mathematics, and it's not the same version that the fundamentals of mathematics was founded on. Much in the same way, if a "Christian" denies the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus, they would not be a Christian, even if they hold other Christian-like beliefs because they are missing the "Christ" part that it's founded on. They would be x religion with amalgamated ideas from Christianity.
In you're example, 1 is fundamental and 2 aren't. I assume they all 3 believe in the death, resurrection & ascension of Jesus, so they would all be labeled as Christian (using my logic). If the fundamentalist believes that, but the other 2 don't, then only the fundamentalist is Christian. If someone does not believe in Christ, they are not Christian.
Do we still disagree? If so, can you clarify better? Maybe I'm not understanding your point fully..
I apologize, I just noticed a small typo in my final rebuttal. That's what I get for debating while working.. Anyways, I just wanted to make you aware of it.
1 Corinthians 14:14 should be 1 Corinthians 15:14
1 Corinthians 14 will get you there, eventually... lol
Considering it's their collective world view, I would argue they are pretty confident in it. Even Paul acknowledges this core tenant and affirms it's requirement in 1 Corinthians 15:14. Additionally, part of the Christian creed is the affirmation of this tenant and their conviction to belief in it. If someone believes parts of Christian mythology without this part specifically, they would be amalgamating Christian mythology into their own.
No, you're either mistaking my words or I am not explaining them well enough. Let me try again. I acknowledge and agree different denominations exist, and that those denominations have varying views and interpretations. I believe we agree to this point?
In reference to "all" Christians - what I mean is, all Christians share the common core tenants of Christianity, regardless of their denominational affiliation. The core tenant example I choose to most commonly refer to is the life, death, resurrection & ascension of Christ. This is a requirement of Christianity. It's also miraculous/magical.
Christianity is just a label for someone who subscribes to the religious world views of Christianity. No matter what denomination you choose, it believes in one or more elements involving magic, and that is delusional. That's why I say "all" Christians. I'm not making up a new definition for it, I'm simply saying certain attributes belong to every denomination of Christianity, and those attributes can be considered delusional (aka Jesus death & resurrection, afterlife, etc).
Words have meanings associated with them for purposes of communication. Labeling something erroneously or arbitrarily is unproductive to the efforts of communication in a normal colloquial sense.
Christian is a word used to describe a member of Christianity, which is a set of doctrines encompassing a religious world view and belief system. The various denominations do differ, but they all share a common foundation. Christian doctrine encompasses beliefs based in magic (resurrections, miracles, etc), and all established denominations share one or more of these beliefs.
If a person doesn't wish to follow or believe the Christian doctrines, that's perfectly fine; but, they are then not a Christian by the definition of the word. They are simply a person who amalgamated a few Christian ideas (like Islam borrowing Judaism ideas, and Judaism borrowing Zororastrian ideas, etc).
For example, if I say I am an atheist, but then I follow that up by saying I believe in a different God than most people do, I am not truly an atheist and the label is erroneous based on normal colloquial definition. This is also somewhat analogous to the popular gender issue. If a man calls himself a woman because he feels like a woman, that does not make it biologically true. The same examples apply to Christians. If they call themselves a Christian, yet fail to partake in the Christian beliefs, rituals and requirements, then they are not a Christian by definition.
So when I say "all" Christians believe in magic, I am referring to all people who belong to an established Christian denomination. Therefore, I am not committing the scottsman fallacy. Anyone who doesn't believe those things, or made up their own amalgamated version are excluded from my proposition because they do not meet the required attributes of the colloquial word.
If a person doesn't believe the tenants of Christian doctrine, are they considered Christian? I would argue no. I can believe something Muhammad said, but that does not make me a Muslim. Furthermore, all versions of Christianity believe in some form of magic, such as their resurrection and everlasting eternal life after death.
Are you saying Adam and Eve did not bite the fruit with their own volition? If so, you are basically deconstructing Christianity with the revocation original sin. All of Christianity is grounded in the concepts of free will, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find a Christian who disagrees with that.
You cannot then logically argue for fatalism, whether scripturally supported or not. This dichotomy directly leads to delusional thinking, because the individual is forced to compartmentalize their conflicting beliefs; conflicting, meaning the coexistence of free will and fatalism.
As @ram pointed out, showing the Bible contains "ABC" is useless. You can literally find anything in Biblical scripture to support a position; that was a point I immediately made. From that point, my argument extended into the logistics of it. You did a poor job of defining your terms and conditions. Just because you couldn't box me into a scripture-only debate, it does not mean my argument was invalid.
Yes, I understand that, but you're missing the point. I said fatalism was NOT valid, BECAUSE the Bible ALSO claims people have free will, and these two concepts cannot logically coexist. Therefore, any proclamation of fatalism is invalid.
2) - What about the common argument of "what if you were created x seconds ago with your faculties intact"..
How would you demonstrate the consistency of reality, without yet having comparable events from this new reality? All of the "known past events" were planted and they may or may not actually be consistent with your new reality, rendering comparison impossible - right?
You referenced some scripture, so what? Nothing about your argument required the use of scripture only for the debate. I agreed that both cases can be interpreted from scripture. The debate subject was "is it valid", and valid wasn't defined. Just because the scripture allows for fatalism and free will does not make it logically correct; that was my entire premise, and that is why it's not "valid".
Just because the word Bible is in the title, that does not immediately lock me into scriptural debate. I already agreed the Bible has references to basically everything. You should have put more time into your debate and explained what you meant by "valid". You also should have specified your expectations and debate terms.
It's not valid to say someone has free will and subject to fatalism.
If my opinions don't matter, why should I bother voting or using this site? If mods are simply just going to overrule me and replace my opinion with their own, it's an enormous waste of time and they should be the only ones voting. I read the entire debate, and formed my own subjective opinion. I then, explained my opinion, from my perspective. I'm sorry you found it inadequate, but it was not a two sentence vote. I put effort into explaining why I disagreed. After being interrogated for my own opinion, in the comments section, I continued to explain and defend my view using sources such as DM Murdock (scroll down in the comments to my last one). I felt my vote was sufficient in it's point, but nonetheless I continued to defend it in the comments. I'm sorry we disagree, but that's the nature of debates, and I find this to be a selective abuse of power. I will not be recasting my vote, or continuing the use of this site as I feel my efforts can be better spent elsewhere. Respectfully, KS.
They are clearly an isolated group of individuals that are segregated from others by God as his chosen people above all others (deut 7:6). They are also the oracles of God's word and many other things. Regardless of any additional roles or responsibilities, they are clearly recognized by God differently from others.
deut 7:6 - KJV
For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath "chosen" thee to be a "special people" unto himself, "above all people" that are upon the face of the earth.
This is one example.. But there are numerous other inferences and suggestions that would imply that's the case. Romans 3 is one example stating Jews are the oracles of his knowledge, further suggesting nepotism.
haha "I didn't say the color was red, but its not every other color"..
Not favorite, but they are his chosen people (above others). That makes no sense haha
Read Deut 7:6
But Jews are God's favorite, above all other people. Would you agree? It's supported by Biblical verses (Romans 3, Deut 7:6, etc)
Seems nepotistic to me..
re: You said the Bible doesn't prefer whites to blacks, I agree. What about Jews?
Refusing medical treatment usually comes from Jesus, post resurrection, in Mark 16:15-18.
Because you asked for a reference in the future. I didn't read all the comments, so perhaps someone already gave you this?
Haha no worries bro! I didn't take anything personal, it's just a debate! Sensitive topics when it involves someone's beliefs..
Thanks bro. It was a good debate!! I had a lot of fun! Sorry, if you took anything offensively, I definitely was NOT trying to be mean or offensive.. Debates sometimes get a little a heated! You did a great job though! It was fun :)
Ya, that's a pretty good summary of it!
I have no intention of it. If I do by accident, call me out! :)
special pleading won't get either side anywhere
I'll have to check it out, thanks!
Ya, it's a good argument. Theist's only defense is special pleading.
Ya, I'm not really sure where it fits either.. I'm on the fence with this currently. The more I think about it, the more I teeter back and forth haha. It's definitely an interesting topic..
Are you familiar with the Friedmann equations and Hubble's Law? Long story short, it shows our universe (space essentially) is expanding. It's calculated with recessional velocity.
If you're skeptical about space being between things, how would you explain light arcing around a gravitational curve in space? The bend in space actually stretches space (and light); it's demonstrated in spectral line displacements from red shifted light.
I agree that space may not have a tangible "mass", or whatever you'd want to call it, but it does directly interact and impact things contained within it. To me, this makes it a Type 1 existence because it exists and interacts with reality.
Thoughts?
Welcome! We almost got the whole crew here now haha
I agree and ....slightly..... disagree. I do concede it's a "gray" area/topic, and I'm not entirely sure where I stand on it, yet. That's why I threw it out there to pick your brain..
So I can't physically "grab" you a piece of space, but space does have a direct affect on things that I can grab you, like particles. For example, as space expands outwards, it displaces the spectral lines in electromagnetic radiation as it travels across it; it can also bend light as it travels through gravitational curves. Because space has a direct impact on particles, which do have physicality, I would argue it must exist, even though I cannot cut a piece off. It has real observable affects in reality.
Thoughts?
haha secular amen!
I'm an atheist but I still use colloquial phrases like "oh my god", "thank god", "amen", etc..
I agree with @wrick here.. He should have the ability to cast HIS vote without being molested or interrogated for it. I'm thankful that he chose my side to fall on, but I would have no hard feelings if he chose yours - it's his opinion. @Mel and others choose to side with you. I'm not upset with them or holding a grudge because they have a different opinion than me. Nor am I interrogating them demanding justification for their opinion. I said what I had to say in the debate, and they are welcome to form whatever opinion they want from that. What you're doing I find childish, disrespectful and unprofessional.
I have to say, it's rather childish and unprofessional to cry in comments and attack people for their vote when it disagrees with your own opinion. The entire purpose of voting is to get other peoples opinions on it. You don't see me on here attacking @mel for voting against me. It's his opinion, and even if I disagree with it, he's entitled to it.
Where does space fall in here? It's physical, because it has affects on physical things (like red-shifting light). It has particles in it, but space itself is not made of particles. Thoughts?
You're going to have to be more specific about "why" DM Murdock's claims are wrong, aside from the fact that you just say so. I can't comment on the Atlantis press stuff, because I am unaware of the drama you're referring to; however, a press not publishing something does nothing to lend to the validity of her work or support your case.
In her book "Suns of God", she clearly believes the Josephus passage you are referring to, specifically, is also an interpolation. There are many other scholars who also are mixed regarding it's validity, and the other Christ passage written by Josephus was an obvious forgery. The totality of this makes it a bad source. Considering you knew all this and still used it, that's why you lost the conduct point from my perspective. If you are going to sneak in a highly suspicious source, you could have at least been open about it and written details about it arguing why you believe it is valid.
I'm open to evidence, I don't care either way if it's true or not. In fact, I'd find it more interesting if it were demonstrably true, because I'm a Jesus mythicist. Even if Josephus did truly write it, and DM is wrong, it doesn't prove Jesus's existence because it's still not contemporary being that it was written around 90-100 AD.
If you disagree with me, that's fine - we can agree to disagree. I was just giving you my honest evaluation.
Below is an article written by DM regarding this specific subject:
http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm
Do those non-literalist Christians, at a bare minimum, believe in the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ as a literal messiah figure?
Ohh, I see. I misunderstood what we disagreed on, fair enough.
What about denominations who are pro LGBT? One example I can think of is Lutheranism (there are plenty others). They have sub denominations on both sides of LGBT. If you are a Christian who belongs to the pro LGBT side, you'd never "always run the risk" of condemning homosexuals, because it's not a stance taken by that version of Christianity.
Generalizing Christians as "anti homosexuals" seems very similar to me generalizing Christians into believing in Jesus's death, resurrection & ascension; mine I would argue is even more imperative since it's the basis of Christianity.
That being said, I totally agree with you regarding the homosexual stuff and compliment you on your arguments.
I absolutely agree with you and your points, but aren't you making the same generalization you ridiculed me for making in my previous debate?
You are essentially saying "all Christians condemn homosexually, etc", and this would be inclusive to all individuals who confess themselves as Christian.
"Then I'll put it on you and ride you and turn your ass into cattle"
wow, I totally read that wrong! lmao
Sorry bro, I'm trying to understand your point of view on it, even though I'm failing miserably haha
Maybe I'm not writing things clear enough or I'm reading past your points. If you want to explain it better, I'm happy to make another attempt at it.
Basically, I am trying to say:
Christian = belief in Jesus's death, resurrection & ascension
Anyone who doesn't hold at least that belief, is not Christian, according to scripture (Paul & Christian creeds).
Most hold that belief + other beliefs (differing from denomination to denomination)
Perhaps my logic is flawed and I'm wrong.
My argument was not based in any way on fundamentalism; it was actually the opposite. I stripped Christian doctrine down to it's most primal form.
It was only based on the core tenants, specifically the death, resurrection & ascension of Jesus. If they do not believe this, then I would not label them as Christian. It's like a person who decided that 1 + 1 = 3, yet still assumes the label of a mathematician. They made up a new version of mathematics, and it's not the same version that the fundamentals of mathematics was founded on. Much in the same way, if a "Christian" denies the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus, they would not be a Christian, even if they hold other Christian-like beliefs because they are missing the "Christ" part that it's founded on. They would be x religion with amalgamated ideas from Christianity.
In you're example, 1 is fundamental and 2 aren't. I assume they all 3 believe in the death, resurrection & ascension of Jesus, so they would all be labeled as Christian (using my logic). If the fundamentalist believes that, but the other 2 don't, then only the fundamentalist is Christian. If someone does not believe in Christ, they are not Christian.
Do we still disagree? If so, can you clarify better? Maybe I'm not understanding your point fully..
I apologize, I just noticed a small typo in my final rebuttal. That's what I get for debating while working.. Anyways, I just wanted to make you aware of it.
1 Corinthians 14:14 should be 1 Corinthians 15:14
1 Corinthians 14 will get you there, eventually... lol
Considering it's their collective world view, I would argue they are pretty confident in it. Even Paul acknowledges this core tenant and affirms it's requirement in 1 Corinthians 15:14. Additionally, part of the Christian creed is the affirmation of this tenant and their conviction to belief in it. If someone believes parts of Christian mythology without this part specifically, they would be amalgamating Christian mythology into their own.
"The great thing here is that these are not sociological arguments. I'd love for anyone name me a single valid sociological benefit to abortion."
Proactive population control (eventually it will be a problem)?
Negation of negative environmental development (kids growing up in an environment proliferated with drugs, poverty, foster care, etc).
Wouldn't those both in one way or another correlate to a more stable/superior sociological environment.
No, you're either mistaking my words or I am not explaining them well enough. Let me try again. I acknowledge and agree different denominations exist, and that those denominations have varying views and interpretations. I believe we agree to this point?
In reference to "all" Christians - what I mean is, all Christians share the common core tenants of Christianity, regardless of their denominational affiliation. The core tenant example I choose to most commonly refer to is the life, death, resurrection & ascension of Christ. This is a requirement of Christianity. It's also miraculous/magical.
Christianity is just a label for someone who subscribes to the religious world views of Christianity. No matter what denomination you choose, it believes in one or more elements involving magic, and that is delusional. That's why I say "all" Christians. I'm not making up a new definition for it, I'm simply saying certain attributes belong to every denomination of Christianity, and those attributes can be considered delusional (aka Jesus death & resurrection, afterlife, etc).
I would have to respectfully disagree.
Words have meanings associated with them for purposes of communication. Labeling something erroneously or arbitrarily is unproductive to the efforts of communication in a normal colloquial sense.
Christian is a word used to describe a member of Christianity, which is a set of doctrines encompassing a religious world view and belief system. The various denominations do differ, but they all share a common foundation. Christian doctrine encompasses beliefs based in magic (resurrections, miracles, etc), and all established denominations share one or more of these beliefs.
If a person doesn't wish to follow or believe the Christian doctrines, that's perfectly fine; but, they are then not a Christian by the definition of the word. They are simply a person who amalgamated a few Christian ideas (like Islam borrowing Judaism ideas, and Judaism borrowing Zororastrian ideas, etc).
For example, if I say I am an atheist, but then I follow that up by saying I believe in a different God than most people do, I am not truly an atheist and the label is erroneous based on normal colloquial definition. This is also somewhat analogous to the popular gender issue. If a man calls himself a woman because he feels like a woman, that does not make it biologically true. The same examples apply to Christians. If they call themselves a Christian, yet fail to partake in the Christian beliefs, rituals and requirements, then they are not a Christian by definition.
So when I say "all" Christians believe in magic, I am referring to all people who belong to an established Christian denomination. Therefore, I am not committing the scottsman fallacy. Anyone who doesn't believe those things, or made up their own amalgamated version are excluded from my proposition because they do not meet the required attributes of the colloquial word.
If a person doesn't believe the tenants of Christian doctrine, are they considered Christian? I would argue no. I can believe something Muhammad said, but that does not make me a Muslim. Furthermore, all versions of Christianity believe in some form of magic, such as their resurrection and everlasting eternal life after death.
butter flavored and wrapped in bacon sounds pretty nice..
All Christians.
Are you saying Adam and Eve did not bite the fruit with their own volition? If so, you are basically deconstructing Christianity with the revocation original sin. All of Christianity is grounded in the concepts of free will, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find a Christian who disagrees with that.
You cannot then logically argue for fatalism, whether scripturally supported or not. This dichotomy directly leads to delusional thinking, because the individual is forced to compartmentalize their conflicting beliefs; conflicting, meaning the coexistence of free will and fatalism.
As @ram pointed out, showing the Bible contains "ABC" is useless. You can literally find anything in Biblical scripture to support a position; that was a point I immediately made. From that point, my argument extended into the logistics of it. You did a poor job of defining your terms and conditions. Just because you couldn't box me into a scripture-only debate, it does not mean my argument was invalid.
Yes, I understand that, but you're missing the point. I said fatalism was NOT valid, BECAUSE the Bible ALSO claims people have free will, and these two concepts cannot logically coexist. Therefore, any proclamation of fatalism is invalid.
Haha I know right!! I find this argument annoying and fruitless also.. Philosophical blah.
If "something" is capable of creating you instantly with false memories, physics is already long gone haha.
2) - What about the common argument of "what if you were created x seconds ago with your faculties intact"..
How would you demonstrate the consistency of reality, without yet having comparable events from this new reality? All of the "known past events" were planted and they may or may not actually be consistent with your new reality, rendering comparison impossible - right?
Wow, interesting topic & opener. I'm anxious to see this one unfold!
You referenced some scripture, so what? Nothing about your argument required the use of scripture only for the debate. I agreed that both cases can be interpreted from scripture. The debate subject was "is it valid", and valid wasn't defined. Just because the scripture allows for fatalism and free will does not make it logically correct; that was my entire premise, and that is why it's not "valid".
Just because the word Bible is in the title, that does not immediately lock me into scriptural debate. I already agreed the Bible has references to basically everything. You should have put more time into your debate and explained what you meant by "valid". You also should have specified your expectations and debate terms.
It's not valid to say someone has free will and subject to fatalism.
No, that's the entire contention of my argument. The Bible proposes they both exist and I am saying it's logically impossible.
"Is fatalism valid, according to the Bible" is the same thing as "According to the Bible, is fatalism valid"
Valid can refer to many things, that's why I gave it a working definition, since you failed to lol
You weren't explicit on what you were arguing so you opened the door for a logical debate.