The Center Stage

[Ballistics]

Okay, here we go.
I believe the first facet to be inaccurate. See the article I posted below.

The second facet of the reasons why Jesus doesn't exist is pretty sketchy. Most of the Pauline Epistles are taken to be authentic in determining the Historicity of Jesus. See this article concerning the Historicity of Jesus.

The third facet of the theory is really trying to make a play on the fact of the relationship between the Abrahamic Religions. See this chart.
Then by taking these myths which have no founding to them at all, and paralleling them to Middle Eastern Abrahamic Religions, then try to connect it to the Western religions. However, going off the idea of Abraham, all of the Abrahamic Religions have some base. This separates them from these myths. Also consider that death and rebirth is a common theme in a lot of tall tales and myths, but these tall tales and myths don't have the same foundation supporting them as these Abrahamic Religions do.

Another edit: This post isn't to start a debate about it in here. As Jaswa said, it belongs in the "Evidence for the New Testament" thread. The point of this post is mainly to say that you can't just come in here and derail Jaswa's 1v1 with Dre. just because you believe that a facet of what they're debating over doesn't exist. Especially if you can't prove your assertion as conclusively true.

Hey join me here : http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=289310

 

[Dre89]

Again, I never said the original tradition that assembled it is faulty, just that the tradition of the Catholic Church today (and at the least since the protestant reformation) doesn't compare with what Scripture (which has kept constant) tells us.

But again, we have evidence of the Church holding the same positions before the Bible (eg. Rome as an authority, dismissing Protestant views of Eucharist as heresy) as we do today.

So even if you say that modern Catholicism got some things right, but deviated on other things, it doesn't matter, because Protestantism still contradicts the Tradition before the Bible. Of the positions we know the Church held bakc then, we know protestantism contradicts them, and Catholicism agrees with them.

 

[jaswa]

But again, we have evidence of the Church holding the same positions before the Bible (eg. Rome as an authority, dismissing Protestant views of Eucharist as heresy) as we do today.

Rrreeeallllyyy???

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

So like I was saying the NT thread about some parts of the Bible being poetic etc. Jesus isn't possibly using metaphor here or anything Jesus himself says to do this in remembrance of him.

If you want you can go ahead and trust the Pope telling you it's physically turning into Jesus body and blood - but whether or not this actually happens doesn't matter because it's totally missing the point, the significance lies in the intent behind taking it and like I've said time and time again the Bible is what's documented and unchanged so I'll go with that.

So even if you say that modern Catholicism got some things right, but deviated on other things, it doesn't matter, because Protestantism still contradicts the Tradition before the Bible. Of the positions we know the Church held bakc then, we know protestantism contradicts them, and Catholicism agrees with them.

Sources for your claims? What issues are you talking about? You're home now - where's your purgatory verses?

 

[Ballistics]

Got a proposition for any current smash debater title owner: if you watch this 30 minute summary of the presentation given by Richard Gage AIA of the AE911truth.org,

http://www2.ae911truth.org/team/gra...Web_Videos/911_Blueprint_for_Truth_30_min.wmv

and you still believe that wtc attacks were carried out without the use of explosives planted in the buildings, I will pay you 5 dollars on paypal, providing that you write a short summary refuting his main points.

I am only going to do this for the smash debaters because their reputation is on the line and I think they are less likely to screw me over by not watching the movie and then just writing a pretend summary.

Posting this in the center stage just because I feel like more debaters are here as opposed to the 9/11 thread

 

[Nicholas1024]

Alright, I think I'm ready for a center stage debate. Go ahead and pick a topic, as I don't really have anything in mind.

@Ballistics
By the way, are you going to refute/acknowledge my argument in your existence of Jesus thread?

 

[Ballistics]

Alright, I think I'm ready for a center stage debate. Go ahead and pick a topic, as I don't really have anything in mind.

@Ballistics
By the way, are you going to refute/acknowledge my argument in your existence of Jesus thread?

Yea I'm just waiting for Guest/anyone else to make initial remarks

 

[Dre89]

Nicholas, I'm happy to play devil's advocate and oppose Christianity in a debate for you.

 

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[Dre89]

Our discussion would remain within the Centre Stage.

Plus, I'll be providing him a different set of challenges than what he's previously experienced in other threads.

 

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[Nicholas1024]

I don't have any "objection" or anything to it, I was just thinking that a lot of what I've read (and this likely applies to others) from Nicholas is from the new testament thread and the intelligent design thread.

True, the vast majority of my posts have been in the ID and the new testament threads. It's why I signed up for the proving grounds after all. Still though, I'll be happy to debate DRE about Christianity, or you guys can pick an unrelated topic. (Hey, I could possibly do both)

 

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[Pragmatic]

Can anyone analyze me being accepted into the Debate Hall?

I've been lurking the Jedi Council thread for a while, and would like a response involving authority figures. Or at least more thought, in general.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Can anyone analyze me being accepted into the Debate Hall? I've been lurking the Jedi Council thread for a while, and would like a response involving authority figures. Or at least more thought, in general.

To be frank, I think some of your posts are phenomenal. I think that the main issue is that you need to post more frequently, but I think that debating a 1 vs. 1 with a Debate Hall Member would allow us to really see how you shine in a debate. If you could choose a topic and a position to present for a debate, then I'm sure that one of us would be willing to engage in discourse.

 

[Pragmatic]

Noted. Thanks for the compliment, it means a lot coming from you.

I have a thread idea cooked up, but unfortunately I'm busy this entire weekend.

 

[Ballistics]

Got a proposition for any current smash debater title owner: if you watch this 30 minute summary of the presentation given by Richard Gage AIA of the AE911truth.org,

http://www2.ae911truth.org/team/gra...Web_Videos/911_Blueprint_for_Truth_30_min.wmv

and you still believe that wtc attacks were carried out without the use of explosives planted in the buildings, I will pay you 5 dollars on paypal, providing that you write a short summary refuting his main points.

I am only going to do this for the smash debaters because their reputation is on the line and I think they are less likely to screw me over by not watching the movie and then just writing a pretend summary.

Posting this in the center stage just because I feel like more debaters are here as opposed to the 9/11 thread

Just in case anyone missed it

 

[Dre89]

Noted. Thanks for the compliment, it means a lot coming from you.

I have a thread idea cooked up, but unfortunately I'm busy this entire weekend.

I didn't really have an issue with you until you said "religion is just about faith". I hate when people say such uneducated comments like that. If you're willing to accept it was a misinformed statement, then I'll +1 you in the Jedi Council.

 

[Pragmatic]

I never said religion is purely about faith, how many times must I repeat that?

It's a groundbreaking main factor, not the entire equation.

 

[Dre89]

.I'm not sure how this can even be debated as...

I'm not sure how this can even be debated as scientific fact.

Nicholas, you do realize the foundation of religion rests on faith, not evidence, correct?

Where exactly are you hoping this thread...

Faith is not your reason for initially believing in a religion. Faith is a virtue achievable once you have reasonable belief in the religion, or used when you are unsure about the religion's explanation about X, but know enough about the religion to know that they probably have a reasonable explanation that you just haven't discovered yet.

 

[Pragmatic]

"Foundation" being a key word.

 

[Dre89]

Foundation suggests a reason for intiial belief, not a reason for merely sustaining belief.

 

[Pragmatic]

"Foundation" actually implies the fundamental, core basics of an object or concept.

If it's an object, it's the core structure. If it's a concept, it's the main, pivotal idea.

 

[Reaver197]

Ah, Dre, forcing PGers to adopt your opinions to get your vote, despite a lack of being to hold them up in Debate Hall proper. Smooth.

If the method and eagerness to learn and improve is there, they should get in, irregardless of differences of opinion.

Anyway, I suck at looking through threads and keeping track of people. Bombard me with links for fun times. I figure I should start trying to help ferry people into that weird place called the Debate Hall.

 

[Pragmatic]

Critique me for the Jedi Council thread?

 

[Reaver197]

Your stuff in the Incest thread is good, you seem to know your stuff in biology. Could probably give me a brush up in my terminology. I most like the fact that you are able to take other people's points and accept them, even if it means acknowledging a failing or weak point in your argument. Ego doesn't hold you back from trying to achieve clarity and accuracy.

From the little I can see, you could probably stand to refer to more outside sources and references for shoring up and giving your arguments more credibility. However, if you have examples of posts in which you do that you can link me to, like I had asked for, you could prove otherwise.

On the whole, I think you have good mindset, and pretty good technical knowledge too. I think you're good for the plunge.

 

[asianaussie]

I'd like some critique too.

A challenge would be nice as well, I happen to have some free (well almost free) time. That's also why there was such a long break between my old posts and my recent thread spamming.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

I'll take you on, cheeseball.

*cracks knuckles*

Pick topic & side.

Edit: that was such a late post it wasn't even funny...

Anyone?

 

[asianaussie]

I'd rather someone else picked a topic.

I like debating out of my depth.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Sorry, I have no clue what to suggest.

 

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[asianaussie]

placeholder

this post *was* my argument but i realised nobody checks these forums unless a new post has been added

im posting again so dark horse will notice i responded

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

There was, but ah well.

You can go first.

 

[asianaussie]

I'll start, as affirmative.

I don't have too much knowledge on the issue (I know a lot on IVF and reproduction in humans, but I skirt around abortion because it never truly interested me), so it'll take some time to write up something.

Abortion, here, will be defined as the act of manually terminating a pregnancy after the stage where the foetus has formed and implanted in the endometrium. The consequence of abortion is the death of the foetus.

Every act has a reason behind it. Abortion is no different, despite the great implications of it, and it is these reasons one must consider before rejecting abortion as, what some may call it, cruel. The implications of abortion are overshadowed by the implications of having a child to raise. In order to bring a child into the world, parents should be fully prepared for the responsibility of raising a child, as opposed to having duty thrust upon them. It is a sad truth that many abortions are undertaken due to the inability to support the child financially, or are done by women not ready to raise a child for personal reasons. Contraceptive drugs and measures are not 100% efficient, barring abstinence, so it is fully possible that a woman who cannot afford to have a child will fall pregnant by accident.

To begin with, I will address a common rationale for abortion: Accidental pregnancies. Sex and reproduction are closely linked, yet the incidence of sex is nowhere near the incidence of pregnancy. This is due to contraception: the collective term for barriers to pregnancy. These barriers are more often than not employed in the westernised world, but their success rate in deterring fertilisation is not 100%. It is in this manner that accidental pregnancies occur. Pregnancy affects one's lifestyle tremendously. A pregnant woman will be unable to work as efficiently, a serious hindrance in a world where money is key. Physiological conditions ranging from backache to deep vein thrombosis can occur. It is unfortunate, but pregnancy can, in extreme cases, be a problem that puts the woman's very well-being at risk. It is for this reason, among others, that abortion may be considered a viable option.

Spoiler

Go on, rebutt. I'm waiting for the murder card to be played. It wouldn't be a debate if we got over the dicey stuff so early

 

[Dre89]

Ah, Dre, forcing PGers to adopt your opinions to get your vote, despite a lack of being to hold them up in Debate Hall proper. Smooth.

If the method and eagerness to learn and improve is there, they should get in, irregardless of differences of opinion.

Anyway, I suck at looking through threads and keeping track of people. Bombard me with links for fun times. I figure I should start trying to help ferry people into that weird place called the Debate Hall.

I'm confused about what you're referring to here.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

To begin with, I will address a common rationale for abortion: Accidental pregnancies.

It's the parent's fault for accidental pregnancies. No need to ill somebody about it.

Pregnancy affects one's lifestyle tremendously. A pregnant woman will be unable to work as efficiently, a serious hindrance in a world where money is key. Physiological conditions ranging from backache to deep vein thrombosis can occur.

Then why don't we just abortion-ize (don't know the proper term ) every fetus?

It is unfortunate, but pregnancy can, in extreme cases, be a problem that puts the woman's very well-being at risk.

Like what?


Abortion is murder. You are killing with an intent to kill. Tell, why is that type of murder "okay" compared to other types of Killing?

Spoiler

Go on, rebutt. I'm waiting for the murder card to be played. It wouldn't be a debate if we got over the dicey stuff so early

Tah-da!

 

[KrazyGlue]

It's the parent's fault for accidental pregnancies. No need to ill somebody about it.

Um... ****?

Abortion is murder. You are killing with an intent to kill. Tell, why is that type of murder "okay" compared to other types of Killing?

Well, you obviously have to set a cutoff somewhere. It's just a matter of where you set it. There are whole ranges of opinions.

Is killing a child before it is self-aware murder?
Is killing a child when it's partially out of the mother murder?
Is killing a fetus murder?
Is killing an embryo murder?
Is killing a fertilized egg murder?
Is using contraception/birth-control murder?
Is masturbation murder?

You have to define where you stand on the scale to have a debate. People who are mega-pro choice think it's ok to kill a born child who isn't self-aware yet, whereas the other extreme argues that even masturbation is murder.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Um... ****?

Forgot about that.

Orphanages, anyone? Abortion isn't the only solution here.

Well, you obviously have to set a cutoff somewhere. It's just a matter of where you set it. There are whole ranges of opinions.

Is killing a child before it is self-aware murder? Yes
Is killing a child when it's partially out of the mother murder? Yes
Is killing a fetus murder? Yes
Is killing an embryo murder? Yes
Is killing a fertilized egg murder? Yes
Is using contraception/birth-control murder? Yes, If the person is pregnant. No otherwise
Is masturbation murder? Err... No. Why would you bring this up?

You have to define where you stand on the scale to have a debate. People who are mega-pro choice think it's ok to kill a born child who isn't self-aware yet, whereas the other extreme argues that even masturbation is murder.

The only real justifiable murder is self defense, as you were provoked (let me change my definition of murder: "Provoking & killing someone with intent to kill")

 

[Pragmatic]

Forgot about that.

Orphanages, anyone? Abortion isn't the only solution here.

Or foster homes, seeing as how I grew up in several of them.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Forgot about that.

Orphanages, anyone? Abortion isn't the only solution here.

What about a preteen or young teen girl whose small body may not be able to handle the physical pain and stress of birth? Should the mother be sacrificed for a baby even if it isn't even embedded in the uterus yet? What if the "mother" is a 13 year old girl who was ***** and may die during birth? Should she just have to lie and wait for her young life to end painfully because of something that wasn't her fault?

Honestly, I'm curious. I just think that when discussing abortion, you need to discuss the extent of your opinions and special cases such as ****.

The only real justifiable murder is self defense, as you were provoked (let me change my definition of murder: "Provoking & killing someone with intent to kill")

Masturbation was brought up because some people believe that the sperm is being wasted and could have been saved for procreation.

 

[asianaussie]

I'm just gonna go ahead and submit my request to join the debate hall...

Seeing as you took over for me and I have like +7 in the jedi council thread :3