Debate discussion

48 views
Religion > A Biblical Worldview

Comments Showing 1-50 of 216 (216 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1 3 4 5

message 1: by Liz (new)

Liz (lizgore) | 3163 comments like what do you mean? live by it a 100% or live by the things that work for you?




message 2: by D.C. (new)

D.C. | 80 comments Well what is right or wrong with believing that the Bible is the ultimate source of truth?


message 3: by Liz (new)

Liz (lizgore) | 3163 comments everything.

i will answer more fully tomorrow i is tired :)
-i am a camp counselor for 4-7 year olds


message 4: by D.C. (new)

D.C. | 80 comments Haha sounds good to me. Yeah those kids do wear you out


message 5: by Koe (new)

Koe | 222 comments I don't think you should keep slaves or offer your daughters up to be raped by the town both of which the bible supports.

I also don't think you should use something as a source of "ultimate truth" when it is so very frequently wrong.


message 6: by Lauren (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 7365 comments Mod
evilbible.com



message 7: by jessi (new)

jessi (infinitevantage) | 437 comments D.C. wrote: "Tell me what you think is the matter with living by the Bible? Just curious."

It would be hard to do since it constantly contradicts itself, not to mention that there are some really terrible things in there that Christians like to overlook, such as condoning slavery and the beating of slaves (Exodus 21:20). Besides, who would want to worship a god who is apparently above his own rules?

Regardless of the specifics of the bible, the fact of the matter is to follow a religion, you generally must suspend logic and rational thought to accept many things. Unfortunately, our society values this, but that is not something I support. In fact, that can be very dangerous, and I hope I don't have to explain why/how.


message 8: by Jayda (new)

Jayda Exodus is in the Old Testament. Those laws (not including the ten commandments) do not apply to our day.

Plus, I read the verse, here's what I read:

20 ¶ And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

God wasn't say "Beat up your servants all you want, even if they die!" - He was saying that if you did you would be punished for it, if I'm reading it correctly.


message 9: by Gina (new)

Gina (so_vintage87) | 33 comments I just find it hard to believe the bible as facts when I can not picture the world and everything in it being created in 7 days.


message 10: by Jayda (new)

Jayda Gina wrote: "I just find it hard to believe the bible as facts when I can not picture the world and everything in it being created in 7 days. "

We don't know how lengthy God's "days" are. To us it's 24 hours. To him it could be hundreds of years.


message 11: by Jayda (new)

Jayda Nathan wrote: "Exodus is in the Old Testament. Those laws (not including the ten commandments) do not apply to our day.

Where does it say that in the Bible? "


My answer is coming. I have to type it up.


message 12: by Gina (new)

Gina (so_vintage87) | 33 comments Jayda,

I agree that the word day could be a metaphor for a longer period of time. If you go by what is literally written in the bible that is was 7 days that is the thing I can not wrap my mind around. I have always felt the bible held ‘explanations’ for things people at that time did not understand. Like the creation of the world. I am not saying that we have right answer now but maybe we have a better grasp on how the world came about, do too advancements in science and technology

I don’t think that there is anything wrong with living your life with the principles that are talked about in the bible like the ‘Golden Rule’. Things like the ‘Golden Rule’ are great. I just think it is wrong to use the bible as a scientific book and take everything that was said literally. I think it is always good to question and never just take one opinion as fact.

I am not sure maybe I miss understood the question given by D.C.



message 13: by Jayda (new)

Jayda Nathan wrote: "20 ¶ And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

Read the rest of it please. Talk about picking and choosing.

"When a man str..."


Sorry I haven't responded to your other post. I'm trying to get in with a doctor.

As far as that post goes, you're wrong. The version I'm reading from (the King James Version) only has what I posted. What is the version you're reading from?


message 14: by jessi (new)

jessi (infinitevantage) | 437 comments Jayda wrote: "Exodus is in the Old Testament. Those laws (not including the ten commandments) do not apply to our day.

Plus, I read the verse, here's what I read:

20 ¶ And if a man smite his servant, or hi..."


Read the entire passage... it continues that if the man recovers after a little bit, it was perfectly acceptable because THE SLAVE IS HIS PROPERTY. I don't care if it's in the OT or not, the fact of the matter is Yahweh deemed this acceptable behavior, when anyone can see that it is not.


message 15: by jessi (last edited Aug 12, 2009 10:13AM) (new)

jessi (infinitevantage) | 437 comments Jayda wrote: "Gina wrote: "I just find it hard to believe the bible as facts when I can not picture the world and everything in it being created in 7 days. "

We don't know how lengthy God's "days" are. To us ..."


That's a cop-out. Is the bible literal/infallible or isn't it? And if not, how do you determine which parts are literal and which parts aren't?


message 16: by jessi (new)

jessi (infinitevantage) | 437 comments Jayda wrote: "Nathan wrote: "20 ¶ And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

Read the rest of it please. Talk about picking and choosing...."


New International Version:

20 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

New American Standard Bible:

20If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished.

21If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; (M)for he is his property.

The Message:

20-21 If a slave owner hits a slave, male or female, with a stick and the slave dies on the spot, the slave must be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he's not to be avenged—the slave is the owner's property.



I don't feel the need to continue.

(source: biblegateway.com)


message 17: by D.C. (new)

D.C. | 80 comments Okay I'm gonna clear up a few thing that people seem to think is so contadictory in the Bible. The first is why was God so cruel in the Old Testament and then so loving in the New Testament. Lets look at it this way. Humans were created as masterpieces of God's Creation(His creation which was perfect), in his very image imageo deo. He gave humanity His nature of goodness and purity, and so they did pretty good for a bit. That was until Satan offered them another choice beside following God's will. Man at this point decided to follow the opposite of God's nature, this is what we today call "sin".

God cast man out of His sight because He cannot accept anything that is not in His nature. So man fell further and further into their new found nature(they still retained some of the good nature but most of it was corrupted). With them creation followed because God originally created man to be in charge of creation. Throughout the Old Testament God shows that man is hopeless on his own, he destroyed nations that were completely evil(sacrificing babies to other fake gods, sexual immorality, lawlessness and anarchy) and set up laws that His nature(He didn't invent the laws off the top of His head) supported. What do we realize by looking at these laws? That they are impossible to follow and man cannot do it on his own.

Now lets look at the New Testament. Man is in sin and are hopelessly condemn to being separated from God for eternity. So God was not content in leaving man in this state, He sent His one and only son to save the world through the sacrifice of His blood. He came and fulfilled the law of the Old Testament. The Old Testament is supposed to tell us how we were created perfect and how far we have fallen and that we needed a savior. We got one through Jesus Christ who said God loves everyone and that His will is for all to be with Him. Through the new covenant of Christ all people are forgiven and all the harsh commandments of the law are forgiven through Jesus. This does not discount or destroy the law. It is still wrong to murder or rape. So when we look at Law we must realize that some of the laws are impossible to follow but we can at least try and they will make us better people.

Now onto what Koe and Nathan have claimed against the Law

It says if a man rapes a women and the women is promised to another man then the rapist shall be killed. If a man rapes a unmarried women he must marry her and if not then he should be killed. What people largely misinterpret in Exodus is that God was not saying that slavery was right, He just made it easier on the slaves because He knew man had a sin nature that would continue to keep slaves no matter what He said. He even said that slaves should be released after 7 years, no other culture did this ever! It was a new idea that a slave could be set free.



message 18: by jessi (new)

jessi (infinitevantage) | 437 comments First of all, if god is omniscient and created us, we have no free will. What does a person's personality/actions come down to? Their nature (who they are) and their nurture (environment, experiences, etc.). God created both. He created everything, didn't he? He even created Satan. He knew full well everything that would happen when he created Adam and Eve.

Secondly, nowhere in Genesis does it even mention Satan. So, if you are to take the bible literally, it was not Satan, but a serpent, that tempted Adam and Eve.

Thirdly, if god is so perfect, he shouldn't have waited so long to impose the "right" set of rules. Why on earth would an all-knowing deity give laws that weren't up to par and then change his mind? It makes no sense.

Fourth, Jesus does not fulfill many of the prophecies that spoke of the coming messiah. Most obviously, his name was supposed to be Emmanuel! Besides that, the concept of Jesus/God (let alone the trinity) is nonsensical in many ways, when they are supposed to be one in the same, and yet not.

On the same note, for an all-powerful deity, Christ wasn't much of a sacrifice. If I cut off my arm, knowing that it will grow back three days later, is that a sacrifice? Not really.

"What people largely misinterpret in Exodus is that God was not saying that slavery was right, He just made it easier on the slaves because He knew man had a sin nature that would continue to keep slaves no matter what He said. He even said that slaves should be released after 7 years, no other culture did this ever! It was a new idea that a slave could be set free."

What a JOKE. This is why religion is so abhorrent. No one would ever think this to be reasonable if they evaluated it objectively. "I'm an all-powerful, all-knowing deity, but since no one is going to take me seriously, I guess I'll just compromise with the laws I set forth and allow my people to keep and harm slaves." Yeah, right.


message 19: by Davis (new)

Davis (davismattek) | 3837 comments What's wrong with believing the Bible as ultimate truth? You become a dumbass.


message 20: by D.C. (last edited Aug 12, 2009 10:43AM) (new)

D.C. | 80 comments Um you don't take Him seriously do you Jessi? Haha right not a sacrifice, how about you die sometime in the brutal manner of crucification and tell me whether you sacrificed much. The Bible says Jesus was unrecognizable up on the cross. I hate that free will argument, do you realize how dumb it is to claim we don't have free will just because God knows what we are gonna do. Does that mean we didn't make the choices? No He just knows what we will do, He didn't force us to do them. How did He change his mind on anything? He just showed how impossible it was for us alone to fulfill the His Law. It says when Jesus died He took the keys of Hell, do you really think He didn't set free anyone who wanted to leave? Immanuel means God with us, so how does that mean Jesus couldn't be the right name? His name means savior. Your presupposition of the trinity has no place in logical debate, thats just your opinion.


message 21: by D.C. (last edited Aug 12, 2009 10:42AM) (new)

D.C. | 80 comments Oh Davis you and your ad hominum approach to arguing


message 22: by Davis (new)

Davis (davismattek) | 3837 comments D.C. wrote: "Oh Davis you and your ad hominum approach to arguing "

I really have nothing to say to you. Your a lost cause. You will go to the grave thinking that your way is the only way, and will probably be rather happy. I just wish you were more open-minded, and not such an idiot. But oh well, to each their own I guess.


message 23: by jessi (new)

jessi (infinitevantage) | 437 comments Could you break up your thoughts? Blocks of text are impossible to read.

"Um you don't take Him seriously do you Jessi?"

Why would I? I don't take things seriously without evidence.

"Haha right not a sacrifice, how about you die sometime in the brutal manner of crucification and tell me whether you sacrificed much."

If I was an omniscient god and I could go through that knowing that it would be over real quick, that really would not be so big of a deal. No sacrifice, as nothing is lost.

"I hate that free will argument, do you realize how dumb it is to claim we don't have free will just because God knows what we are gonna do. Does that mean we didn't make the choices? No He just knows what we will do, He didn't force us to do them."

You didn't understand my argument. First of all, if god knows that I will eat a burrito for lunch today, can I go and have a sandwich? Of course not. I think I can, but I have only the illusion of choice.

Even besides his omniscience, the fact that he created us and our environments means that he is the one who made us who we are and, thus, determined what actions we will take. We are our minds/chemistry and our surroundings/encounters. God has set up both of those things. There is nothing more to us than our nature and nurture, and he created both, leaving no alternatives when it comes to what paths our lives will take.

"How did He change his mind on anything?"

I think we have covered this. In the past, certain things were acceptable that no longer are. Additionally, he doesn't even follow his own rules.

"It says when Jesus died He took the keys of Hell, do you really think He didn't set free anyone who wanted to leave?"

I'm not sure what your point is with this.

"Immanuel means God with us, so how does that mean Jesus couldn't be the right name? His name means savior."

It says he shall be known as Emmanuel. No one ever referred to him as that. Not once.

"Your presupposition of the trinity has no place in logical debate, thats just your opinion."

First of all, the trinity is never even mentioned in the bible. Secondly, it's not just an opinion. If A = B and B = C, then A must = C. No one can explain the trinity properly because it doesn't make any sense.


message 24: by Gina (new)

Gina (so_vintage87) | 33 comments DC
I am confused. I don’t get how explaining the stories of the bible (above where you talked about Jesus and the OT etc…) makes everything in the bible facts. Are you a literalist of the bible or a contextualest because there is a huge difference.


message 25: by Gina (new)

Gina (so_vintage87) | 33 comments Oh… and isn’t there a huge discrepancy between science and the bible as to how old the earth is? Doesn’t the bible say the earth is a lot younger than scientific tests have placed it?

Please correct me if I am wrong but I could swear I read that somewhere.



message 26: by Davis (new)

Davis (davismattek) | 3837 comments "Doesn’t the bible say the earth is a lot younger than scientific tests have placed it?"

Yes.


message 27: by [deleted user] (new)

I agree with Davis. DC, you're a lost cause. I hope you don't have kids.


message 28: by Jayda (new)

Jayda Gina wrote: "Oh… and isn’t there a huge discrepancy between science and the bible as to how old the earth is? Doesn’t the bible say the earth is a lot younger than scientific tests have placed it?

Please cor..."


Not necessarily. It says that after Eden it's younger than what scientists say. However, we don't know how long the days were to God when He was creating the earth, and we have no honest idea how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden.


message 29: by jessi (new)

jessi (infinitevantage) | 437 comments It says seven days. If you take every part of the story of Genesis seriously and literally, why would you not take the week literally? People only made up the "we don't know how long a day is to god, though" thing after realizing that it didn't make any sense. Instead of rejecting it as an asinine concept, they say maybe it didn't really mean days as we know them.

Additionally, I think we have a perfectly good estimate as to how long Adam and Eve were in Eden, since we have a good idea as to how long the average human life span was back then.


message 30: by Jayda (new)

Jayda Is there even any point in me taking time out of my day to explain it to you, Jessi? Or will you just brush it off and not even care that I give you an answer?


message 31: by Davis (new)

Davis (davismattek) | 3837 comments Jayda wrote: "Is there even any point in me taking time out of my day to explain it to you, Jessi? Or will you just brush it off and not even care that I give you an answer?"

Just imagine trying to explain it to me. Nothing you say is ever good enough for us Jayda, too much fallacy.


message 32: by Jayda (new)

Jayda Or too much closed-mindedness, in my opinion.
But I've realized over the past few months that there really is no point in debating with you guys. There's no way you'll change your opinions, am I wrong?


message 33: by Davis (new)

Davis (davismattek) | 3837 comments And will we ever change yours? Don't accuse someone of being close-minded if you are close-minded as well.


Rachel (aka. Kaiserin Sisi) (looney-lovegood) | 222 comments Jayda, that was a good point about not knowing how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden for. I've never heard that arguement before.

And Jessi, I believe that before Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden, they were meant to live forever, so the average human life span is irrelevant to that point.


message 35: by Davis (new)

Davis (davismattek) | 3837 comments If they were meant to live forever, why was there heavan?


message 36: by Jayda (new)

Jayda That is very true, Rachel. I'm not positive, bt I think you're right. I think that life span wasn't relevant at the point when they were in the presence of God. Besides, humans back then after Eden lived for hundreds of years.

Davis - No, you won't. At least I don't brush everything off as fallacies when you guys give me information from your side.


message 37: by Jayda (new)

Jayda Davis wrote: "If they were meant to live forever, why was there heavan? "

That was before they fell, before they were truly mortal.


message 38: by jessi (new)

jessi (infinitevantage) | 437 comments Jayda wrote: "Is there even any point in me taking time out of my day to explain it to you, Jessi? Or will you just brush it off and not even care that I give you an answer?"

Oh, I care alright. I have been searching for satisfactory answers for these kinds of things for a long time.


message 39: by jessi (new)

jessi (infinitevantage) | 437 comments Rachel (aka. Kaiserin Sisi) wrote: "Jayda, that was a good point about not knowing how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden for. I've never heard that arguement before.

And Jessi, I believe that before Adam and Eve were expelle..."


Does it ever say that they were meant to live forever? I don't think it does. Please correct me if I am mistaken.


message 40: by jessi (last edited Aug 12, 2009 12:16PM) (new)

jessi (infinitevantage) | 437 comments Jayda wrote: "That is very true, Rachel. I'm not positive, bt I think you're right. I think that life span wasn't relevant at the point when they were in the presence of God. Besides, humans back then after Eden..."

There is no evidence to suggest that people actually lived for hundreds of years. And even if it was hundreds of years that Adam and Eve were in Eden, that is not significant enough to account for the huge difference between the age of the earth according to creationists vs. the age that scientific research has shown.


message 41: by Davis (new)

Davis (davismattek) | 3837 comments "That was before they fell, before they were truly mortal."

Then when was Heavan created?


message 42: by Davis (new)

Davis (davismattek) | 3837 comments "Davis - No, you won't. At least I don't brush everything off as fallacies when you guys give me information from your side."

Your right. You don't use the word fallacy, you just say we're wrong.


message 43: by Jayda (new)

Jayda Jessi wrote: "Rachel (aka. Kaiserin Sisi) wrote: "Jayda, that was a good point about not knowing how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden for. I've never heard that arguement before.

And Jessi, I believe tha..."


Does it ever say that it didn't?


message 44: by Jayda (new)

Jayda Davis wrote: ""That was before they fell, before they were truly mortal."

Then when was Heavan created?"


Heaven was pretty much around before the earth was created.


message 45: by Davis (new)

Davis (davismattek) | 3837 comments Oh really? I've never heard that.


message 46: by Jayda (new)

Jayda Davis wrote: "Oh really? I've never heard that."

Pre-mortal existance. Heard of that?


message 47: by jessi (new)

jessi (infinitevantage) | 437 comments Jayda wrote: "Davis wrote: ""That was before they fell, before they were truly mortal."

Then when was Heavan created?"

Heaven was pretty much around before the earth was created. "


Where does it say that?


message 48: by Davis (new)

Davis (davismattek) | 3837 comments "Pre-mortal existance. Heard of that?"

Yep. Didn't think you mormons believe in that junk.


message 49: by Jayda (new)

Jayda Davis wrote: ""Pre-mortal existance. Heard of that?"

Yep. Didn't think you mormons believe in that junk."


What the hell? We teach from the Bible, as well. The pre-existance is the whole reason we're here from a Christian perspective. Why wouldn't we believe that?


Rachel (aka. Kaiserin Sisi) (looney-lovegood) | 222 comments When God is warning Adam and Eve not to eat from the Tree, he tells them that they will die if they eat from it. Considering the fact that they did not drop dead immediately after eating, it makes the most sense that they were made mortal. Before they ate from the tree, they could not die. Once they ate from it, they were made mortal as a punishment.


« previous 1 3 4 5
back to top