The Debate Hall Social Thread

[KrazyGlue]

Huh, I thought objective morals didn't exist?

Yeah... they don't. How is this related?

It's not just conveniently interpretting it the way we want it to sound - it's using the context and passages that link in with it to derive it's meaning. I'm no expert but I'm sure if you ask a minister who's properly trained I'm sure they'll give you a better response, plus they'll know the literal translation/interpretation from the Hebrew/Greek (just for the record the ministers at my church have done 4yr theology degrees and know Hebrew/Greek - not sure what the standard is for others...)

Also Jesus makes clear lots of the things in the Old Testament. Interestingly he continually talks about the Jews legalism *cough* Catholics are no different *cough*

I know, but since God is allegedly of such a higher being than us that we can't understand his moral decisions, how are we supposed to interpret these passages? To suggest that we could correctly interpret these passages is to suggest that we can understand God's thinking.

 

[Dre89]

The words "minister' and "properly trained" shouldn't be used in the same sentence.

Okay I'm just kidding I'll be serious now.

Jaswa, as a Prot, I don't know why you're saying that objective morals don't exist. The Ten Commandments aren't meant to be subjective, they're not some "goodness is what you want it to be" crap.

Krazy, you're still msising the point. The way you say it, it's as if people stumbled across the Bible, and made a personal interpretation of it (which is actually pretty much the case for most types of Protestantism, other types, such as Jaswa's type will argue that they resemble the Early Church before the Bible, despite the fact that historical evidence suggests otherwise, but that's a different story).

Your question is valid against Prots. Of all the interpretations, how do they know theirs is the right one? What makes theirs stand apart from the rest?

Caths know their interpretation because they interpretation today is exactly the same as those who put it together. The idea is that God revealed His word in a humanly intelligble way, and the Tradition was established, and it's role was to practice, preserve and spread the message.

If you were God, it'd be like you telling me your message, then me converting it into Scripture. Two thousand years later, people who comform to my interpretation would obviously be the most accurate.

Certain types of Protestantism, such as literalism, completely ignore the context the Bible was collaborated in. It's like claiming that a painting is supposed to be interpretted as X, despite the fact that we know the painter intended it to be interpretted as Y.

Then you have Jaswa's type of Protestantism, who argue that modern Catholicism has deviated away from the Early Church. The issue is, we have historical evidence showing that the modern Church holds views held by the Early Church, so Jaswa would essentially be saying that the Catholicism deviated before it even collaborated the Bible, which would invalidate the Bible.

However, where I do agree with you Krazy on the double standard is on philosophical issues such as the problem of evil. Theists will say that the potential for evil was a consequence of God bestowing free will upon humanity, and that God gave us free will because He wanted us to freely chose Him, out of love. Yet when the skeptic mentions gratuitous evil, that is, evil which appears to be pointless, the theist resorts to saying that God is unintelligible.

 

[jaswa]

The morality thing was more questioning the people who had a whinge at the youtube of Dr. Craig that Dre showed in another thread. Don't see how you can complain that God is immoral if you have no distinct way of objectifying our morals. Surely a god would be outside of our perception of morality and have a more definite view on morality if he created the universe where these morals exist.

Now, yes protestantism is built off the original church - however, the current day Catholic Church has deviated from what it originally was. Since we can't trust tradition to be passed down with infallibility, we rely on Scripture because we can see that it has remained constant since the early Church. Plus since the protestant church produced the King James Version of the Bible, which was translated directly from the Greek - NOT the Latin that the Catholic Church kept replicating which on priests taught, you almost don't need to rely on the 1500yrs of tradition.

Just because Catholics still tell you to go to church and have a bit of Eucharist, doesn't mean it is equivalent with the early church. A LOT of their current doctrine is different from what Jesus tells us in the Bible. Like I joked at before - I almost want to say that Catholics are just like the pharisees during Jesus lifetime.

I swear we've gone through this before, mm yeah we have in http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=11419489&postcount=783
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=11423865&postcount=795

And you never answered http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=11445296&postcount=803, and I recall you dismissing the 1Cor passage when I brought it up in person...

Can you possibly give me a summary of Catholic doctrine in say 10ish points or something?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

@Bob-Jane: The BRCA2 protein is limited in its function of which DNA it can treat. Along the C-terminus of the compound are active sites that recognizing certain DNA. I'm assuming that these active sites attach to the major groove of a given DNA conformation in order to recognize the site. Sites that are not recognized probably will not allow the BRCA2 to bind or vice versa. There is also a BRCA1 that may attach to DNA alpha strands that the BRCA2 protein cannot attach to due to its specificity. Therefore even though you are correct in your assumption that DNA repair systems are a common motif throughout the human body and cellular interactions, there are often different mechanisms such as chaperone proteins (HSP70) and other house-keeping sequences that are translated to form protective proteins.

Oh I see. It makes a whole lot more sense now.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Krazy, you're still msising the point. The way you say it, it's as if people stumbled across the Bible, and made a personal interpretation of it (which is actually pretty much the case for most types of Protestantism, other types, such as Jaswa's type will argue that they resemble the Early Church before the Bible, despite the fact that historical evidence suggests otherwise, but that's a different story).

Your question is valid against Prots. Of all the interpretations, how do they know theirs is the right one? What makes theirs stand apart from the rest?

Caths know their interpretation because they interpretation today is exactly the same as those who put it together. The idea is that God revealed His word in a humanly intelligble way, and the Tradition was established, and it's role was to practice, preserve and spread the message.

If you were God, it'd be like you telling me your message, then me converting it into Scripture. Two thousand years later, people who comform to my interpretation would obviously be the most accurate.

Certain types of Protestantism, such as literalism, completely ignore the context the Bible was collaborated in. It's like claiming that a painting is supposed to be interpretted as X, despite the fact that we know the painter intended it to be interpretted as Y.

Then you have Jaswa's type of Protestantism, who argue that modern Catholicism has deviated away from the Early Church. The issue is, we have historical evidence showing that the modern Church holds views held by the Early Church, so Jaswa would essentially be saying that the Catholicism deviated before it even collaborated the Bible, which would invalidate the Bible.

However, where I do agree with you Krazy on the double standard is on philosophical issues such as the problem of evil. Theists will say that the potential for evil was a consequence of God bestowing free will upon humanity, and that God gave us free will because He wanted us to freely chose Him, out of love. Yet when the skeptic mentions gratuitous evil, that is, evil which appears to be pointless, the theist resorts to saying that God is unintelligible.

Ah... I understand it now. Thanks.

Don't see how you can complain that God is immoral if you have no distinct way of objectifying our morals.

I don't think I ever said He was immoral.

 

[jaswa]

I don't think I ever said He was immoral.

Sorry if it wasn't you, I remember a few people complaining about God ordering his followers to go around killing people in the Old Testament.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

By the way Dre, that was a really nice post you made in the PG there about homosexual adoption. It was very civil, and I thought it was well-written.

 

[Dre89]

Thanks. But my view on homosexuality isn't really any less civil. The only reason why I object to homosexuality is because I feel it is a sexual act outside of the natural act, just like casual sex. I don't consider gays sub-human or anything, or any worse than anyone else who has ever done wrong, which is pretty much everyone.

 

[Reaver197]

You just showed you know nothing about Christianity.

Christianity isn't just based on a book, it was the Church who put that book together. Carholicism is based on both Tradition and Scripture.

The Scripture was only assembled into the Bible because it was the most efficient means of preserving the message. The Bible isn't the only source of authority.

As for Tradition, we have historical evidence that views held by the Church now were held by the Early Church, before the Bible was collaborated.

You say there is no evidence for the content of the Bible being true. Well can I ask, what sources have you looked at? You can't make that claimig if you haven't done any research.

Look at the thread in the PG. Also, there have been something like 38 separate biblical scholars who testify that the tomb was empty three days after his death, and that he was crucified. It's not just conservative scholars either, it's pretty much universally accepted by all biblical critics.

So even if the Bible isn't the word of God, and I never said it was, that's nit what I'm arguing, you clearly have no advanced understanding of what you're talking about.

You've been one of my biggest critics, yet I don't know why I should listen to you if you throw out claims about things you know nothing about.

I'm certainly not going to pretend that I know everything about the history of the bible and church, because I do not. However, the idea of the authoritative text for Christianity being compiled and edited together by the very people who have a vested interest in selling the ideas it has seems to open the very real possibility of them gaming what got in and what got said (even then, they didn't do the best job).

What I do know, though, is that the bible is riddled with contradictions, some of them minor, some of them major. What ever methodology or type of evidence you subscribe to for proving the historical accuracy of a piece of literature, I'm pretty sure that having contradictions within the very source of material you are trying to verify does not help its case.

Even then, the bible has counts of disagreeing with independently established history. Such as in Luke, who says that Jesus was born during Kind Herod's reign, and was born in Bethlehem due to a census decree by Caesar Augustus while Quirinius was Governor of Syria. But that is not possible, since the census was done in 6 AD, whereas Herod died in 4 BC.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/jesus_born.html

Not to mention, the scriptures conflict with one another with where Mary and Joseph went to even have Jesus born, and the genealogy for him.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/gen_ml.html

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/before_birth.html

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/egypt.html


Even for the given example of disappearing from the tomb there are contradictions surrounding that event.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/women_see.html

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/open.html

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/inside.html

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/ascend.html

I don’t know how historical accuracy can be claimed for sources that disagree with each other on both minor and major details. Obviously, this is probably something that effects historical verification to some degree or another, but when it comes to being pretty much the only source that claims these things as being true, it lends some level of skepticism to me.

Also, I’m quite aware the Church was the one that compiled the bible, which only makes me more wary of its veracity. They have a vested interest in making the message it gets across conforms to the one they think it is and should be, or whatever would get as much people to follow them. They’re trying to make their cake and eat it too. Not to mention that at that time, they probably weren’t the most skeptical and objective of people, and prone to believing very credulous things.

 

[Sucumbio]

By the way Dre, that was a really nice post you made in the PG there about homosexual adoption. It was very civil, and I thought it was well-written.

I dunno, to me it seems as if he's saying that gays shouldn't adopt because it's not in the best interest of the child, which is false. (I'd argue why but I don't want to take it away from the PGr's but numbers makes a good point about how you could say the same of Muslims, fat people, -insert any other group that could lead to the child's ridicule at school-).

Thanks. But my view on homosexuality isn't really any less civil. The only reason why I object to homosexuality is because I feel it is a sexual act outside of the natural act, just like casual sex. I don't consider gays sub-human or anything, or any worse than anyone else who has ever done wrong, which is pretty much everyone.

I have to ask, Dre. based on this underlined sentence, why would you even bother making the point at all? If in your eyes gays are no worse than anyone else, or in essence, if everyone's "done wrong," including yourself it seems, does this not reduce to a common denominator? Does this not end up devolving into a ranking system of who's done more "wrong" than others? And then would you not have to ask yourself where gays fit on your moral scale? Say, 1-10 1 being Hitler and 10 being, Ellen DeGeneres? Does this not then lead to morality itself devolving into a flat-line? Stealing your neighbor's car and running over some kids at the schoolyard, murdering 6 million Jews, having sex before you're married, having gay sex, spitting on The Pope, I mean... I realize morality is supposedly "arbitrary" but your version takes the cake! And then eats it... before dinner.tsk tsk

 

[Dre89]

You have to remember it all started because I was asked to present my view.


I never said morality can be mathematically graded. I just believe some wrongs are graver than others, that's a logical belief.

The black and Muslim thing is a weak analogy, but I'll answer it when I'm on a computer.

 

[Sucumbio]

You have to remember it all started because I was asked to present my view.

Of course, and I'll grant that, but... what you've presented hardly qualifies as a view, I feel. It's ... underweight. If you honestly one on hand think gays are "no worse than anyone else who's done wrong" then admit that "everyone's done wrong" ... you see? That's essentially saying nothing. Now saying you don't think homosexuality is morally permissible, THAT IS saying something. However, your justification for that belief falls flat when you apologize for it with "even though I don't think they're any worse than anyone else who's done wrong." Morality is about right and wrong, correct? (I think it is.) So if you don't think homosexuality is morally permissible (and I'm not at all addressing why you think it's not at this time), you are implying automatically that other things ARE morally permissible, and THIS is what leads to defining for yourself, or in general oneself, what is right and wrong.

In other words, homosexuality is not morally permissible = you think it's wrong.

How wrong?

Not anymore more wrong than any other wrong that people have done? You just said yourself that you weigh these things, that some are graver than others... so lets have it, Dre. Tell us, how grave is gay sex, in your opinion?

Can you tell us without contradicting yourself when you say its "no worse than anyone else?"

 

[jaswa]

[

I'm certainly not going to pretend that I know everything about the history of the bible and church, because I do not.
.
.
.
Even then, the bible has counts of disagreeing with independently established history.

Then don't speak on such issues. Throwing out a link that's riddled with inaccuracies and throws away context doesn't do anything. If you want to debate it, learn the theology for yourself. There couldn't possibly have been multiple Herods living and reigning around the same time period :O

@Sucumbio;
Dre said gay sex is just as grave as casual sex. His issue isn't the gender or orientation of the people involved, it's their non-commital behind the relationship.

I think for most people, we can accept arbitrary lines for 'worse' moral doings than others. For example, most people would agree that if I punch my friend for no reason isn't quite as bad as killing 6 million because they're Jews. For Dre, I'd assume gay and casual sex are on the same line somewhere in between those two.

 

[Reaver197]

Then don't speak on such issues. Throwing out a link that's riddled with inaccuracies and throws away context doesn't do anything. If you want to debate it, learn the theology for yourself. There couldn't possibly have been multiple Herods living and reigning around the same time period :O

Lol, if you had bother to actually read through the sources provided, you would see that Herod the Great (or Herod I) was the sole ruler of Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great

He did have sons named after him, like Herod Archelaus. However, Archelaus is mentioned by name in Matthew as being the successor to the Herod I, leaving it only to be the Herod that ostensibly ordered the Massacre of the Infants, which seems might be iffy as to whether even have taken place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_Archelaus


Seems you have some learning about the theology to do yourself.

Not that it really matters so much to me, the whole premise being flawed. It's like the Emperor's new clothes. You can bicker to me over learning the fabrics and techniques they used to weave the material, but I'm just here to point out there isn't any to being with.

Plus, with all the needless pain, suffering, death, and money laundering that is committed in religions name and by the religious, I feel obligated to speak out against such a looney belief system.

 

[KrazyGlue]

His issue isn't the gender or orientation of the people involved, it's their non-commital behind the relationship.

Nope, it's actually because they're not doing the "natural act", aka procreation. I've given up on trying to understand why the "natural act" is what is "natural" as well as why it can be the only "good" thing.

 

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[El Nino]

His issue isn't the gender or orientation of the people involved, it's their non-commital behind the relationship.

Because gay people don't have committed relationships.

Except when they do. But I guess it doesn't count unless it's a legally documented marriage, and it won't be a legally documented marriage as long as we keep it illegal, the way it was always intended to be throughout the history of time, like the divine rights of the pharoah and slavery.

Nope, it's actually because they're not doing the "natural act", aka procreation. I've given up on trying to understand why the "natural act" is what is "natural" as well as why it can be the only "good" thing.

Is in vitro fertilization "natural"? I don't use my appendix for its natural purpose either. Am I morally screwed? Wait, don't answer that. >_>

 

[Dre89]

Yes but when I say they're not doing the natural act, it's the same offence as casual sex, they're both wrong for the same reason.

Sucumbio, I don't consider gays worse than anyone else because we all do bad things.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I dunno, to me it seems as if he's saying that gays shouldn't adopt because it's not in the best interest of the child, which is false. (I'd argue why but I don't want to take it away from the PGr's but numbers makes a good point about how you could say the same of Muslims, fat people, -insert any other group that could lead to the child's ridicule at school-).

No, I thought that it was civil because he wasn't arguing from the point of view that "homosexuality is wrong and therefore they shouldn't adopt children". He asked us to consider what's best for the children, instead of the morality of homosexuality. In short, he had the opportunity to say something very nasty, and he didn't.

 

[Dre89]

Bob got it right.

The answer shouldn't centre on whether homosexuality is permissable or not, because that becomes about empowering one side. It should be about the children and what's best for them.

Giving a child to a gay couple simply because they're gay is using the child as a political statement. Same as denying a couple a child simply because you feel homosexuality is immoral. You're jeopardizing the child's best chance at life for politics.

 

[Sucumbio]

@Sucumbio;
Dre said gay sex is just as grave as casual sex. His issue isn't the gender or orientation of the people involved, it's their non-commital behind the relationship.

I'd caution you not to put words in his mouth, he can speak for himself. This statement is still not saying anything, you see. It's just saying that homosexuals are like extramarital or premarital couples. Not only is that inaccurate (Ellen DeGeneres is legally married) but he's already said that he's not using a Christian Fundamentalist viewpoint, so premarital sex shouldn't even be mentioned. (He'd have to explain why THAT is immoral, so that I could understand how it correlates to his view).

Yes but when I say they're not doing the natural act, it's the same offence as casual sex, they're both wrong for the same reason.

This almost sounds like you think marriage is natural. Do you think that?

Sucumbio, I don't consider gays worse than anyone else because we all do bad things.

Okay, well I don't consider Brussels Sprouts to be particularly enjoyable, it doesn't mean I think people are wrong for consuming them. o.o

No, I thought that it was civil because he wasn't arguing from the point of view that "homosexuality is wrong and therefore they shouldn't adopt children". He asked us to consider what's best for the children, instead of the morality of homosexuality. In short, he had the opportunity to say something very nasty, and he didn't.

I disagree, I think he said the same thing he's been saying all along and just worded it differently. But to each their own.

Giving a child to a gay couple simply because they're gay is using the child as a political statement. Same as denying a couple a child simply because you feel homosexuality is immoral. You're jeopardizing the child's best chance at life for politics.

Yeah, but who does that? Who actually adopts out kids to only gay couples? I'll grant there are some organizations that have members that may deep down hate gays and therefore never willingly impart their caseloads onto gay couples... and I'll say that's a wrong, and that they shouldn't be in that position to do that, to make that decision. But... "in the best interest of the child" the sexual orientation of the parents is frankly irrelevant, at least it should be.

 

[Dre89]

This almost sounds like you think marriage is natural. Do you think that?

When I say marriage I don't necessarilly mean a legalised unity initiated in a Church. I just mean that you make a life-long commitment to your partner. I think the life-long commitment is natural in humans, not because it is prominent in history, but because our biology and overall nature suggests we are structured for it.

Okay, well I don't consider Brussels Sprouts to be particularly enjoyable, it doesn't mean I think people are wrong for consuming them. o.o

But all wrongs should not be committed, that's why they're wrong. Murder should not be committed. Now murder is a far graver wrong than sexual impurity (unless it's ****) which means it's more important that murder is not committed, or that it is more detrimental, but you can't start distinguishing between what wrongs shouldn't be committed and what wrongs can be committed. Granted, the penalty for murder should be far more severe than the penalty for lying. But distinguishing between what wrongs should be tolerated and what should not is purely arbitrary.

I disagree, I think he said the same thing he's been saying all along and just worded it differently. But to each their own.

No, if I was saying the same thing, I'd be arguing that homsoexuality is immoral, therefore no gay should be able to adopt. I'm not using the immorality of homosexuality as a premise. I don't think it's immoral to be black, but if the child is donated into a region where he is likely to encounter trouble for having black parents, I wouldn't send the kid there when I can send him somewhere safer. That's got nothing to do with the morality of being black, same as my argument with regards to homosexuality has nothing to do with the morality of homosexuality.

Yeah, but who does that? Who actually adopts out kids to only gay couples? I'll grant there are some organizations that have members that may deep down hate gays and therefore never willingly impart their caseloads onto gay couples... and I'll say that's a wrong, and that they shouldn't be in that position to do that, to make that decision. But... "in the best interest of the child" the sexual orientation of the parents is frankly irrelevant, at least it should be.

I'm not saying that sexual orientation is relevant in terms of parenting skills. It's relevant in that it attracts undesireable discrimination and trouble for the child. I'm not about to subject a child to that just so a gay couple can feel empowered and have the joy of a child.

But the point is if someone were to do that, it'd be a political statement. I've said that if the gay couple is the best option, in that the other couples are not good people, and the gay couple is in a community which accepts homosexuality, therefore the child will not experience trouble, then it should go to that couple. Basically, if a child is given to a gay couple in virtually any other circumstances than those, it's using a child for a political statement.

Edit- There seems to be alot of questions and misunderstandings about the positions I hold, particularly with my use of "natural" in morality. I was thinking of making a thread, where i would just write up the entire argument, and then people could ask me quetsions, but then that would be ego-tistical on my part to assume that I'm that important to the DH, and it'd also be about me trying to prove my personal beleifs, rather than just debating for the sake of debating.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I disagree, I think he said the same thing he's been saying all along and just worded it differently. But to each their own.

In his OP, he said this:

I think these arguments miss the point. The question should be worded as "is a child's best interest comprimised if it is adopted by a gay couple?". Now when we look at it from the viewpoint of the child, as far as I know, there hasn't really been any evidence to suggest that gay parents are any worse than straight parents.

Note the last sentence in bold (I bolded it by the way). I believe that Dre is actually taking the stance that gays should be allowed to adopt, but that they shouldn't be given any preference over straight couples. It makes sense.

 

[El Nino]

I believe that Dre is actually taking the stance that gays should be allowed to adopt, but that they shouldn't be given any preference over straight couples. It makes sense.

No, I think he's actually saying that gays could be good parents, but society is intolerant towards homosexuals, so it would be wrong from them to raise children because that would expose the children to discrimination:

I'm not saying that sexual orientation is relevant in terms of parenting skills. It's relevant in that it attracts undesireable discrimination and trouble for the child.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

No, I think he's actually saying that gays could be good parents, but society is intolerant towards homosexuals, so it would be wrong from them to raise children because that would expose the children to discrimination:

That as well. I believe it was a little of both.

 

[Dre89]

Well yeah, it's a bit of both. The reason why I don't think they should be given preference over straight couples is because of the discrimination they attract, so you're both right really.

 

[Sucumbio]

I'm not saying that sexual orientation is relevant in terms of parenting skills. It's relevant in that it attracts undesireable discrimination and trouble for the child. I'm not about to subject a child to that just so a gay couple can feel empowered and have the joy of a child.

And this is why I think you're just saying that same thing. Maybe where YOU live this is true, but where I live (in the United States) this is only true in the most backwards of places, where you'd not likely find many adoption agencies anyway. In theory craft, or in the ideal, you're correct, the "best interest of the child" is ALWAYS paramount. But in the real world, at least where I live, the best interest of the child would not be compromised by the race, gender, creed, sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc. of the adopting parents.

This is NOT to say that some adoption agencies don't have strict rules about these things. That's why private adoption agencies are allowed to have criterion, such as they will only adopt out kids to Christian families, etc.

But we're not talking about that, are we? We're talking about in general, and in general, and in this day and age, what you're referring to is a relic model of behavior. There's plenty of white kids who grow up in mainly black neighborhoods, for instance.

But the point is if someone were to do that, it'd be a political statement. I've said that if the gay couple is the best option, in that the other couples are not good people, and the gay couple is in a community which accepts homosexuality, therefore the child will not experience trouble, then it should go to that couple. Basically, if a child is given to a gay couple in virtually any other circumstances than those, it's using a child for a political statement.

I find this to be gross exaggeration. If the gay couple is the "best" couple to adopt out to, and the ONLY "draw-back" is that they're not in a gay-friendly community, then they MUST be doing it for political reasons? Nonsense. They can't control the feelings of their neighbors. They can't be expected to move to San Francisco. And assuming how much "trouble" the child will receive is also poor. Who's to say that the child will end up any better off in a gay-friendly community? What if he's a Muslim child and the neighbors still shun him/her because of that? You can't coddle children from the dangers of the world. True you may not take white-bread and stick him in Compton, but you're also not going to NOT adopt him out if the family lives in Queens.

 

[Reaver197]

Saw this, and thought it fit much too well with the point I was making earlier to pass up on.

http://www.project-reason.org/bibleContra_big.pdf

 

[AltF4]

Hey all! I've been gone for a while, but lurking intermittently. I figure I'll actually participate again in what capacity I can.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Welcome back to the Drebate Hall.

 

[Lore]

I'm not going to jump right intothe debate, but I would like to mention that a lot of the genealogical errors in the bible were probably caused by a lack of a reliable record. Most of it was probably just hear-say and family traditions.

The "massacre of the infants" was probably just a local killing of children to quiet down the guys who were yelling about a new king, etc, or at least, that's how I've always interpreted it.

I don't really have any answers for other contradictions; I'll let someone who is more informed than me answer those.

Anyway, welcome back to the DH, AltF4!

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

It's nice to see you back AltF4.

 

[AltF4]

Thanks!

How did it come to pass that all the good debate topics are in the PG?

 

[Crimson King]

DHers stopped being removed, so activity went where users were.

 

[Sucumbio]

PG is where all the fresh ideas come up I guess, once they get into the DH they tend to hide out instead of posting. I just approved four more, lol the PG is definitely the "hot bed" of activity. As usual DH'rs are encouraged to not actively debate there, but there's usually one that'll jump in to the fray, which I don't have a problem with so long as debaters aren't debating each other, that's when it gets out of hand and takes away from the purpose of the room.

 

[Sieguest]

I find it pretty ironic. The PG is becoming what we wanted the DH to be!

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Rrrrr. That's actually quite annoying. Then again, at least we have a quality management system here. However, none of the good topics are being brought up here.

 

[Aesir]

I don't post in the DH anymore because of that.

I wanna have a debate about free trade =(

 

[Reaver197]

I'm not going to jump right intothe debate, but I would like to mention that a lot of the genealogical errors in the bible were probably caused by a lack of a reliable record. Most of it was probably just hear-say and family traditions.

The question is, how much of the stories and presentations in the bible is exactly that, hear-say and traditions?

 

[KrazyGlue]

Well, now I've thought over Dre's comments again...

The idea is that God revealed His word in a humanly intelligble way, and the Tradition was established, and it's role was to practice, preserve and spread the message.

Yes, that's the idea. But how can this ever be proven? How do we know God didn't just pretend to make His word humanly intelligible, but was in reality saying something too profound for humans to actually comprehend?