The Center Stage

[Nicholas1024]

Sounds like a plan.

From what I understand, one of your objections to Protestantism is that the Bible was compiled by the Catholic church, correct?

 

[ballin4life]

lol at asking for a secular debate and getting a religious one ... seems like that's all anyone talks about here

 

[Dre89]

Sounds like a plan.

From what I understand, one of your objections to Protestantism is that the Bible was compiled by the Catholic church, correct?

Correct. Also, make your position clear as to whether you're an inclusivist or exclusivist, ie. whether you believe anyone who is good hearted will be saved, regardless of whether they believe or not, or if only those who believe, regardless of whether they are jerks or not, are saved.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Correct. Also, make your position clear as to whether you're an inclusivist or exclusivist, ie. whether you believe anyone who is good hearted will be saved, regardless of whether they believe or not, or if only those who believe, regardless of whether they are jerks or not, are saved.

I'll try to get an argument up over the weekend. It's been a bit hectic the last couple of days. Anyway, the Bible clearly teaches that only those who believe in Jesus as the Son of God will be saved, regardless of moral works.

 

[Dre89]

But why should we only listen to the Bible if the Bible is simply the Catholic Tradition converted to Scripture to spread the message where there were language barriers?

 

[GwJ]

You failed to successfully debate your proof of the new testament Nicholas. Why would you think you're ready?

 

[Nicholas1024]

But why should we only listen to the Bible if the Bible is simply the Catholic Tradition converted to Scripture to spread the message where there were language barriers?

Ah, you mistake the catholic tradition with Christianity. You see, the Bible was originally compiled 3rd/4th century, as a list of authoritative books about Jesus and Christian teachings. So, at that point the church was in agreement with the modern protestant church. However, after Christianity was legalized and made the official religion of the roman empire, people began joining the church for political power instead of valid reasons and corrupted it. If you compare the teachings of the medieval catholic church with those of the Bible, you'll notice quite a difference.

@GWJumpman
To be blunt, asking you about the validity of my arguments would be like asking Hitler about the validity of Judaism. You're hardly objective on the matter.

 

[GwJ]

Anyone would agree you proved nothing. Forget it though. Good luck though.

 

[3mmanu3lrc]

I'll try to get an argument up over the weekend. It's been a bit hectic the last couple of days. Anyway, the Bible clearly teaches that only those who believe in Jesus as the Son of God will be saved, regardless of moral works.

Yes! no because someone belongs to an specific religion is gonna be saved, religions save nobody, but trusting, accepting God, confessing his sins and asking God for forgiveness.
Some say that Christians will be saved, others say that Catholics will be, I say that many Christians will be lost and many Catholics will as well be lost, but those who make God's willingness and confess God as the only God and his only savior, those will be saved.

 

[GwJ]

This isn't the place for you to talk about that topic. There's two threads open on that.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

Nicholas is on the center stage.

It would be better if others did not interfere.

 

[Dre89]

Looks like Gw has emerged as a poor man's version of that token arrogant athiest in every forum who contributes nothing other than one liners expressing his arrogant, and often uneducated athiesm, in an attempt to speak with such authority that he doesn't need to justify any of his claims.

Nic- Firstly, we have historical evidence of the early Church having the same teachings as modern Catholicism, such as not believing in the transubstantiation being a heresy, and Rome as the authority.

Secondly, it was St. Irinaeus, a Cath, who put the Bible together, and future Protestant Bibles still omit the same books as he did.

Yes Protestants conveniently omit books which discuss divorce or who can be baptised, but the general lay-out of what is considered an accurate portrayal of the message of God comes from Catholicism.

Thirdly, seeing as how most NT texts were written long after the events, the Church existed before most of these texts, who were written by people in the C Church.

It's stupid when Ps say to Cs "where does it say X in the Bible?", because the Bible is a product of C Tradition. The Tradition claims that the Holy Spirit is in it, making it divinely inspired, so you were only supposed to be reading the Bible on the belief the Church is divinely inspired.

That's why all the teachings don't need to be in Scripture, because the claim that the Scripture is divinely inspired is itself a teaching of the Church.

The main reason the Bible was assembled was to spread the messages to places where there were language barriers. If Scripture was the fundamental pillar, then Jesus Himself would have wrote it down, or instructed people at the time to have. But He didn't, He preached orally, and doesn't mention Scripture, but mentions spreading the word orally. Jesus' actions reflect authority through passing the message down via Tradition, nor through Scripture. This is why NT scripts were made so much later, because that was the time when spreading the message further became an issue.

 

[3mmanu3lrc]

@Dre about the Bible thing... I don't agree with you in some ways...
I think too that the Bible is not the fundamental pillar, but it's really important to study it, it's not only God's words in it, there's also many things that Jesus didn't say himself, but the disciples did.
If the Bible hadn't been written, the message could have been lost/corrupted, there's the possibility that it gets changed from the origin of it and what it was meant to be.
I may have misunderstood your point though.

 

[GwJ]

Just back out Emmanuel, it's not your turn in the center stage.

edit@yournewpost: No, I'm serious; I'm not trying to act mean; it's not your turn.

 

[3mmanu3lrc]

Just back out Emmanuel, it's not your turn in the center stage.

Sorry in advance!
And you're here because.......???
If being a debater means being arrogant, then you should definitely be in.

 

[Dre89]

Haha that was pretty funny.

Gw is generally pretty arrogant (which is what makes it funny) but here he wasn't doing anything wrong. Nic is debating a DHer (me) as a final test to see if he should be in the DH. So it's a 1 on 1 debate, that's why Gw is saying it's not your turn. Just a misunderstanding, that's all.

 

[MacNCheese.]

Hi! Just started a couple days ago! Check out my posts! :D

 

[Nicholas1024]

Nic- Firstly, we have historical evidence of the early Church having the same teachings as modern Catholicism, such as not believing in the transubstantiation being a heresy, and Rome as the authority.

Just to be clear, how early are you talking with "early church"? Do you mean a few decades after Jesus died, or more like a few centuries?

Secondly, it was St. Irinaeus, a Cath, who put the Bible together, and future Protestant Bibles still omit the same books as he did.

Yes Protestants conveniently omit books which discuss divorce or who can be baptised, but the general lay-out of what is considered an accurate portrayal of the message of God comes from Catholicism.

I know Catholicism uses the Bible, and I have no problem with that. My problem are with the tradition teachings that aren't found in the Bible. You see, if the bible was constructed as a way to pass the language barrier (or a list of authoritative books, either way), why didn't they include the teachings on Purgatory and such? You'd think those would be important enough to be included, but we don't see anything like that in there.

Thirdly, seeing as how most NT texts were written long after the events, the Church existed before most of these texts, who were written by people in the C Church.

By today's standards it might be long, but by ancient standards 30 years is practically a news flash.

It's stupid when Ps say to Cs "where does it say X in the Bible?", because the Bible is a product of C Tradition. The Tradition claims that the Holy Spirit is in it, making it divinely inspired, so you were only supposed to be reading the Bible on the belief the Church is divinely inspired.

Here's the key point. Given the number of ancient texts of the bible from all over the place that we have, it's pretty obvious that the Bible has been passed down to us in the same form it existed way back then. However, how do we know that the Catholic tradition hasn't changed over time? If you look at the stuff going on in the medival ages (the crusades, the inquisition), you have stuff based only on Catholic tradition that is obviously at complete odds with scripture.

That's why all the teachings don't need to be in Scripture, because the claim that the Scripture is divinely inspired is itself a teaching of the Church.

While they didn't initially need to be in scripture, putting them in scripture is the only way to ensure that they'd last without being changed over the centuries.

The main reason the Bible was assembled was to spread the messages to places where there were language barriers. If Scripture was the fundamental pillar, then Jesus Himself would have wrote it down, or instructed people at the time to have. But He didn't, He preached orally, and doesn't mention Scripture, but mentions spreading the word orally. Jesus' actions reflect authority through passing the message down via Tradition, nor through Scripture. This is why NT scripts were made so much later, because that was the time when spreading the message further became an issue.

I disagree. I think the Bible was assembled as a list of an authoritative books, basically saying, "Look everybody, just so we're all clear on the issue, THIS is what we accept is true." (A modern equivalent would be to get a bunch of composers together to give a statement saying "Look everyone, Bach and Mozart were great.")

 

[Dre89]

Jesus never blessed any books with the Holy Spirit, He blessed the Tradition.

Again, if books were so important, why didn't Jesus write anything? And why was the NT written years after, by people in the C Church?

Your whole point about us having so many copies on the texts means nothing because the NT was written by people in the Church. We simply wouldn't have the NT if it wasn't for the C Tradition.

Again, you're only supposed to be reading the Bible if you believe the Tradition is blessed with the Holy Spirit, so not everything needs to be in the Bible, for believing that the Bible is divinely inspired is itself a teaching of the Church.

We have evidence of the teachings I talked about in my last post from around 100 AD, well before the Bible.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Jesus never blessed any books with the Holy Spirit, He blessed the Tradition.

Again, if books were so important, why didn't Jesus write anything? And why was the NT written years after, by people in the C Church?

I suppose the point I'm trying to argue is that Early tradition = Scripture =/= Later tradition.

Your whole point about us having so many copies on the texts means nothing because the NT was written by people in the Church. We simply wouldn't have the NT if it wasn't for the C Tradition.

No, my point is that we definitely have the new testament as originally written. Can we say the same about tradition?

Again, you're only supposed to be reading the Bible if you believe the Tradition is blessed with the Holy Spirit, so not everything needs to be in the Bible, for believing that the Bible is divinely inspired is itself a teaching of the Church.

No, I think we should have everything in the Bible. You see, if purgatory was taught by Jesus and the early disciples, wouldn't they have included that in the biologies of Jesus's life that they wrote? Seems like a really important topic to me.

We have evidence of the teachings I talked about in my last post from around 100 AD, well before the Bible.[/QUOTE]

Could you please share some of this evidence? I've never really heard of it.

 

[Dre89]

I'll respond to this soon. I'll edit this post and PM when I've done it.

Or better yet, explain to me whether you believe any good person will make it to Heaven, or only those who believe in Christ, regardless of their moral state. It means you can know when I've responded without having to PM you or double post.

 

[Seikend]

I have a question. What's the benefit of joining the DH?

The only one I can see is the social thread and the icon. The only other topics that seem to have any activity are just debates that could easily be recreated in the PG.

I think I'd be able to make a case for myself relatively soon (I'd rather brush up on my theism and religious studies first, since most of the active threads revolve around these topics), but the PG seems good enough for me really.

 

[GoldShadow]

You get a cool icon in your postbit, and you get to tussle with the big boys.

 

[Savon]

I figured that I might as well try to debate here on the center stage for entrance into the main debate hall. I feel as if most of my posts are ignored since I have a tendency to be very passive when it comes to responses, but I would love to have a chance to really cut loose here with whatever topic you all would like to throw at me. I am down for just about any topic, but I really would prefer to avoid religious topics because this board has REALLY wore them all out. Thanks.

 

[Ballistics]

I nominate Arizen to the Debate Hall because of his flawless work in the 9/11 Alternative Hypothesis Theory Thread in which he has yet to be proven wrong with logic or evidence. I motion that he should get a debate in here to prove his worth.

 

[Rizen]

I nominate Arizen to the Debate Hall because of his flawless work in the 9/11 Alternative Hypothesis Theory Thread in which he has yet to be proven wrong with logic or evidence. I motion that he should get a debate in here to prove his worth.

Thanks, that was unexpected. I'll 'run the gauntlet' for debate hall.

 

[GwJ]

Yeah, he wasn't proven wrong. He also said he can't prove anything he said. He was just theorycrafting.

 

[Ballistics]

Actually he proved that the towers were not caused to fall from the planes with science, and that who actually was the cause of the EXPLOSIONS is still up for debate. Which is trivial. The focus is on whether or not the version of the story the good old government gave us is correct. And he destroyed that hypothesis.

 

[Sucumbio]

I'd actually welcome any DH member to challenge Arizen to an old fashioned policy debate.

 

[Rizen]

Yeah, he wasn't proven wrong. He also said he can't probe anything he said. He was just theorycrafting.

Quotes starting recent and going back in time:

This^ is still speculating on if 9/11 was an inside government job. The only things I'm stating did happen are the 9/11 attacks did involve controlled demolition and the investigation and news coverage was appallingly incompetent at best.

There's proof that the towers fell from controlled demolition. 9/11 being an inside job is speculation; it played a large role getting the US into Iraq and we had several reasons besides 9/11 to invade/liberate Iraq. For now the motives of 9/11 attacks and going into Iraq aren't necessarily connected.
[...]
No, I've proven that controlled demolition was involved in destroying the towers. And planes also hit the towers. It's all caught on film. Both, not one or the other, happened. There's no element of uncertainty.
<><><><><><>

Stop. I line by line addressed each post. The reason we're not talking about the science anymore is no one could disprove the controlled demolition theory science so people stopped talking about it. It's proven and I know what I'm talking about. With that said, my comment was about what El nino posted and I don't mind talking speculation.
[...]

It's been done and proven controlled demolition was involved. Nothing is stopping anyone from researching something.

Same old thing. I’m not doing this to win a debate; everyone was affected by 9/11 and the events after. One can’t solve a problem that’s not correctly identified. I’m calling people on ‘tip toeing’ around the facts; address them and prove them wrong or at least admit you can’t disprove them. I’ve answered every argument thrown at me.
[...]
It's at a standstill because the evidence is solid. Prove me wrong. ("invisible unicorns"?)

A considerable amount. It doesn’t add up.

Again-again, no one has disproven Ballistics and my argument. I’ve read and line by line debated every post, even one I didn’t need too. At this point it’s all steering people back to the solid facts already presented. If I can be proven wrong, do it.

I'd like to point out that I read each argument and directly addressed each point in my posts instead of just posting links. I have never brought questioning any source's credibility into the argument and based my cause on scientific accuracy. No one has defeated me on these grounds.
[...]
I've done my part by reading and answering opposing posts. Please do the same for me. But know, as skeptic as people are at first, no one's ever disproved me in this debate.

Of course, everyone has bias. It bugs me when someone claims a source is unbiased; which is why I'm focusing on the science of what happened. I've been in several of these 9/11 debates and no one's actually disproven my points. People keep diverting attention with other conspiracy theories, who and why questions, off topic statements and so on. I think people don't like the idea of controlled demolition being involved. Take away the 'foreshadowing', names, politics, conspiracy theories, and just focus on the solid facts of the tragedy. I've illustrated several key points about how the buildings fell, the nature of the fires and heat, characteristics of controlled demolition as opposed to the piledriver theory, basic laws of freefall, etc. What does it show? I can't see any theory besides controlled demolition being accurate. No one has disproven this or provided a different theory without (metaphoric) holes. What's interesting is no one can think of another scenario, with a very wide assortment of possible components, in which the events of the towers falling would be recreated: "simply name anything, ever, that has fallen strait down due to fire or a side impact".

Desert storm seems to have a lot of influence on the Iraq war, but I don't want to start that until why the towers fell is established. I can keep bringing the focus back to points based on scientific properties and evidence.

<><><><><><><><><>

Posts: 31, 49, 56, 73, 75, 79, 92, 95, 98, 105, 113, 114, 130, 136, and 143 have the least sidetracked presentation of evidence.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=287318&page=12
_____________________
Will a moderator please lock that thread so it's not exhumed and I won't have to do ^this again?

 

[Sucumbio]

or... not... -_-

 

[Rizen]

I have changed my mind.

I'd actually welcome any DH member to challenge Arizen to an old fashioned policy debate.

Yeah, he wasn't proven wrong. He also said he can't prove anything he said. He was just theorycrafting.

If that was the debate, I offered 14 countering examples and listed 15 sources, in posts, to the subject date in question with a link. I also defeated the argument "he also said he can't probe anything he said" (lol spelling).

or... not... -_-

I agree. I posted links, multiple sources, and line by line critiqued other people's post. No one has proven the controlled demolition theory wrong. In fact moderators tried to shut it down because Ballistics kept posting the same source when people wouldn't view it. Then again tried to stop the debate because a repeated advertising rule.

You're right, I'm getting drenched in here.



@Ballistics

I've kinda been reading along, not really weighing in on your... topic. And now I sense it's time to mention that you're kind of... well, you're bordering on violating rule number 4 of the SWF global rules: No Blatant Advertising. I dunno I guess not really, but it's close. It's a tie between almost spam and almost advertising. You admit to coming into the PG NOT to join the Debate Hall, but instead to bring our attention to this website and this video. You even admit to not caring whether or not we're convinced, you just really want the opportunity to spread "the truth" about this thing, and stuff. So like, how is this ... not? Spam? And advertising?? I could understand if you were really trying to convince people of the position that the Truthers have taken, but you're not... you're more interested in getting their web hits up. You don't get a kick back from them, do you? Anyway, I agree with EE, of course, there's no need for this topic to be discussed in the Center Stage, but I even question its validity in the PG in general, as I also question the validity of Ballistic's membership to the PG.

The whole time finding any way to stop, discredit or sidetrack the focus and ignoring other's spam. Yes, a lot of it was back and forth. But only one side's spam was addressed by the moderators.
There were many good debaters and points but I don't like biased moderators breathing down my neck and letting spam like this go free:

Your meager say-so does not reduce it to speculative evidence -- which is, by the way, the very foundation you've built to house your beliefs. Your opinions are not the criteria for evidence. Hard evidence and fact are inherently objective.

Sitting pretty on a biased pedestal and repeatedly ignoring logically sound rebuttals is not debating. It's trolling.

Start debating.

You're posting the same video over and over again, and when anyone forms a counterpoint, you plug your ears as tight as you can and go "LAH LAH LAH LAH LAH LAH". You're the only person ignoring anything. You are a fool.

Your video is two-hours of a discredited organization/engineer. I've watched about 5 minutes before I got bored. Why not present his findings in the form of published material since we read faster than the video?

Then you plugged your ears and went "LALALALALA" to everything we said.

My arguement against Ballistics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA97P5D-y7M&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrGnODZKx3c&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF8UzWclbkA&feature=related

More proof then your videos.......LOL

-sigh-

You keep making the exact same arguments Ballistics. I hope you aren't in any sort of IRL Debate Club.

On another note, that blue text is pleasant to look at and Guest seems like a pretty cool guy.

And I wasn't making fun of you, I was stating a fact. You would be a detriment to your Debate Club if this is how you debate IRL.
You know what? Yeah. Join a debate club, and do it in my state. Because if I'm sitting across the room from you, I get a free win, because no judge will ever take an argument that keeps pointing to the same evidence time and time again without further proving it. The only redeeming factor of your team would be your partner, and I would hope that he would have the intelligence to somehow salvage your case.

/rant

So, with 9/11 they believe everything about the reported claim is false for some insidious claim. They see the conspirers as super intelligent and evil people who will gladly kill 3,000+ people for their aims. That's their focus, and we are all duped into that story so they must enlighten us.

Yes. For 9/11 truth. Architects and engineers with obvious bias.

This type of comment is exactly why I questioned your motives to begin with. You'd rather not debate conspiracy theories? Is that not what AE911 is claiming? That there was a conspiracy to hide the "truth" behind 9/11? If all you want to do is talk about the presentation, there's not much to talk about, frankly. We're not architects or engineers. And what exactly is there to discuss or debate? This thread is just a plug for their website.

Also it's suspect that they charge for the "fullest" version of their presentation.

Just sayin'

Following a group that has 9/11 Truth in their title is no less ridiculous than the search for paranormal life.

For example, here's a false proof of Fermat's Last Theorem (one of the most famous mathematical puzzles).

(1) Assume that Fermat's Last Theorem is true.
(2) Then, there exists xn + yn = zn with n ≥ 3.
(3) For any x,y, we can create a right triangle and so we can suppose a value r such that:
r2 = x2 + y2.
(4) Since n ≥ 3, we know that z is less than r. [I will add the details for this later]
(5) We can construct a triangle based on z,x,y. Since z is less than r, we know that the angle opposite z (let's call it angle B) must be less than 90 degrees (and of course, greater than 0 degrees).
(6) Now, using the Law of Cosines, we know that:
z2 = x2 + y2 - 2xycosB.
(11) Since B is greater than 0 and less than 90, we know that cosB cannot be a whole number. [See here for a Cosine look up table]

QED


Now, by asking people who know what they are doing (or google searching that exact text), I can find out why this is wrong. But I personally do not have the knowledge to show why the above proof is incorrect, and heck I'm in 2nd year Math.

Using your logic, if you cannot disprove what I pasted above, then I win.

Are you ****ing illiterate? Multiple people have presented evidence to you, and you choose to ignore it all because it doesn't support your theories.

Seriously kid, if you aren't going to actually debate, then leave the Proving Grounds so those of us who actually WANT to go to the main room can.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=11420264&postcount=116

I was just trolling; basically trying to make a point that typing lots of text does not make for good debate, it just makes you hard to respond to. Please don't actually respond to it, for your own sake.

"I don't claim elitist superiority. When I called you out on your "Debate" technique, it was legitimate criticisms.
Also, I'd like you to go ahead and tell me where I was ignorant when I do not ignore anything presented to me, rather, I answer it.

Quote:
World English Dictionary
ignorance (ˈɪɡnərəns)

— n
lack of knowledge, information, or education; the state of being ignorant
and "Ignorant"
Quote:

ig·no·rant
   /ˈɪgnərənt/ Show Spelled[ig-ner-uhnt]–adjective
1.
lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2.
lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3.
uninformed; unaware.
4.
due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

Hm...doesn't say that "Ignorant" means "I disagree with you." Seems someone's throwing around a word they don't understand."

Personally, just like invisible unicorns dancing on the moon, it's possible, but I doubt our govt. is competent enough to be able to pull off something like that.

Thanks for the pre-holiday laugh.

This is why I no longer want to be part of this debate hall. Thank you to the people who respectfully debated with and against me.

 

[Sucumbio]

lol why do you keep posting stuff from that thread? It's completely irrelevant to what I said. No one's taken up the open challenge against you for a policy debate. I was gonna give it a couple days, and if no one bites I'll be your huckleberry. About the 9/11 thing, I personally would rather not use that thread or any of the debating that went on in there between anyone as a basis for membership in the DH, but that's just me. 1 Thread is typically not enough to warrant membership. IF you feel you're not exactly ready to debate a mundane topic 1v1 w/a DH member on something like the situation in Egypt, etc, that's fair enough. I'd suggest creating a topic or two, or at least participate in a few topics so that we have more to go on than "oh yeah, Arizen's the guy that sided with Ballistics." Sorry if that wasn't clear before.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I suppose I might be willing to debate with Arizen on something. However, I wouldn't do the 9/11 conspiracy topic as that's not something I'm really interested in, plus Arizen does need to branch out a bit away from that one topic. I also haven't really followed the other 9/11 thread much, so I'm not particularly biased. Though it appears he's decided against having a debate, if he's still willing, I'd be willing to do this.

 

[Evil Eye]

Don't argue 9/11. Debate something else.

Egypt could be interesting, but I'd rather just let sucumbio or acrostic give you guys some ideas.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I honestly don't think it's going to happen.

 

[Dre89]

Don't argue 9/11. Debate something else.

Egypt could be interesting, but I'd rather just let sucumbio or acrostic give you guys some ideas.

I don't get what the point of the debate hall is if we can't debate controversial issues. I thought the point of the DH was to select the people civil enough to do so.

This might as well just be a Pool Room with an admission process then.

 

[KrazyGlue]

The problem is that Arizen needs to debate more than JUST ONE topic. We need to see him in topics other than the 9/11 conspiracy one.

 

[Battlecow]

Wassup! I require entrance into yonder debate hall. I've only made like ten-ish posts in the PG but my sterling wit and charming personality speak for themselves. I don't need any silly nominations; I'm the ****ing BATTLECOW.

Grill away, yo. I'm ready.

 

[ballin4life]

To prove your epic Debate skillz, I ask that you take the side "England is superior to America" in a debate.