• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Bible is Completely Immoral[W:197]

Jerry said:
No, that is my argument, learn the difference.


This thread is not about court opinions on personal opinions. This thread is about the bible. If one believes the bible (or any book) to be full of lies and hate, one is welcome to not read it.
Click to expand...

You are simply wrong. This SITE is about waging opinions on topics. The topic is the bible. Everything contained herein is an opinion. It is your opinion that one simply doesn't need to read it. It is my opinion that opinion is a childish one that leads only to ignorance. That is MY argument. Learn the difference.
 
Ctrl Phreak said:
You are simply wrong. This SITE is about waging opinions on topics. The topic is the bible. Everything contained herein is an opinion. It is your opinion that one simply doesn't need to read it. It is my opinion that opinion is a childish one that leads only to ignorance. That is MY argument. Learn the difference.
Click to expand...
This thread is not about general forum structures. This thread is about the bible. You don't have to read it if you don't like it.
 
Re: The Bible is Completely Immoral

tosca1 said:
I've read the quoted Bible verse - what about it? What context would you want it to be taken other than what it clearly says?


What's your point?
Click to expand...

I was replying to something Ancient Herald mentioned...

...namely that things are often taken out of context.

The passage I cited tells us that we can buy, sell, and own slaves.

I was wondering if there is a "context" in which that could be taken other than in the way the citation clearly indicates...

...that is is okay with this god of yours to buy, sell, and own slaves.

Since you are saying the passage is clear as written...no problem.

The god you worship...the god Jesus worshiped...says there is absolutely nothing wrong or immoral about buying, selling, and owning slaves.

Make of that what you will.
 
Jerry said:
This thread is not about general forum structures. This thread is about the bible. You don't have to read it if you don't like it.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion.
 
Jerry said:
That is my argument. Learn the difference :)
Click to expand...

An argument is more than a statement. An argument is backed up with logic and hopefully evidence and facts. A mere statement is not an argument. That is how yo tell the difference. Can you take that single statement, and actually support it with reason?
 
RAMOSS said:
An argument is more than a statement. An argument is backed up with logic and hopefully evidence and facts. A mere statement is not an argument. That is how yo tell the difference. Can you take that single statement, and actually support it with reason?
Click to expand...
The bible is an item, you can simply put it down and walk away. I'm sure you don't need a source for the physics involved in walking away from an item.

...or maybe you do? I admit I don't know your education level.
 
Re: The Bible is Completely Immoral

RAMOSS said:
How very very amusing. You keep on doing what is known as 'projection'. You do know what 'projection' is don't you?
Click to expand...

Yeah, and I've got the degree in psych to prove it's just another one of your horse manure claims.
 
Re: The Bible is Completely Immoral

Logicman said:
Yeah, and I've got the degree in psych to prove it's just another one of your horse manure claims.
Click to expand...

OH yes..I am sure you do. However, that does not mean that you are able to clearly see yourself. And, no, it isn't. I wonder if you know how you appear to others?
 
Re: The Bible is Completely Immoral

tosca1 said:
Borrowing from Csbrown, I suppose you're doing the mental gymnastics now....:lol:


You're not merely denying with your posts, especially this thread, aren't you?
Using McDonald's as an analogy for the Bible - you're not merely denying McDonald's is a good place to eat.
You're opposing their ad, and saying McDonalds is full of crap.

Anyway, who would spend time writing an article saying all that about McDonald's if they aren't anti-McDonald's to begin with?

Furthermore, what does it even mean to "deny" McDonald's is a good place to eat?
How do you wiggle out of "denying" something is good without claiming it's not good?
Holy Molly....now, this is the hard impact aerobics thrown at you. :mrgreen:

tosca1: I like McDonald's. It's a good place to eat.

Distraff: No, it's not a good place to eat.


What's that? Isn't that negating what I'd claimed? You're opposing what I'd claimed!



Just your title alone says it all.

You're negating.:shrug:

You're an anti-Bible. That means, you're an anti-Christ, too.
Click to expand...

Anti means opposed to or against. Simply disagreeing with something doesn't mean that you are opposed to it. Someone can simply not like the taste of McDonalds food without having any ill feeling toward McDonalds, blaming McDonalds in any way, or wanting McDonalds to be any more successful. They might understand that it serves a population of a certain taste that does not include them.

Being opposed to something means you believe it is false. Denying something only requires that you lack a belief in it. A person can have no belief for or against Christianity, and if asked will say that they currently do not believe it is true, this is denying Christianity. Since they don't believe that it is false then they are not opposed to or against it.

So denying that something is true is not the same as being against it. The latter is a much stronger position than denial. Opposition (anti) is always much stronger than denial.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
The bible is an item, you can simply put it down and walk away. I'm sure you don't need a source for the physics involved in walking away from an item.

...or maybe you do? I admit I don't know your education level.
Click to expand...

If you don't like what you read, you can simply set it on fire. Paper burns at 451 F.

Is it your suggestion that this is an argument?
 
Ctrl Phreak said:
If you don't like what you read, you can simply set it on fire. Paper burns at 451 F.

Is it your suggestion that this is an argument?
Click to expand...
Well I don't support book burning but you're certainly welcome to. If the bible is your property and you're doing it in a pit or something, burn away.
 
Re: The Bible is Completely Immoral

distraff said:
Anti means opposed to or against. Simply disagreeing with something doesn't mean that you are opposed to it. Someone can simply not like the taste of McDonalds food without having any ill feeling toward McDonalds, blaming McDonalds in any way, or wanting McDonalds to be any more successful. They might understand that it serves a population of a certain taste that does not include them.

Being opposed to something means you believe it is false. Denying something only requires that you lack a belief in it. A person can have no belief for or against Christianity, and if asked will say that they currently do not believe it is true, this is denying Christianity. Since they don't believe that it is false then they are not opposed to or against it.

So denying that something is true is not the same as being against it. The latter is a much stronger position than denial. Opposition (anti) is always much stronger than denial.
Click to expand...


Blah-blah-blah.....

Bottomline: your thread is an anti-Bible! Your title says it all. Therefore, you're also an anti-Christ!


Therefore, never mind being indignant about being called an anti-Christ. The verse stated it bang-on. :lol:





So denying that something is true is not the same as being against it. The latter is a much stronger position than denial. Opposition (anti) is always much stronger than denial.
Click to expand...

Ha-ha-ha....mental gymnastics still in progress with you, huh?:lol:


OPPOSE...... is a synonym of deny. They have the same meaning.


Contradict, refute, reject, negate - they're all synonyms of deny!


Deny Synonyms, Deny Antonyms | Thesaurus.com





distraff

Opposition (anti)
Click to expand...

After all that tap dancing, in the end, you agree with me: you're an anti-Bible and an anti-Christ.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Well I don't support book burning but you're certainly welcome to. If the bible is your property and you're doing it in a pit or something, burn away.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the question. You seem to have difficulty with simple concepts... direct questions etc.
 
Ctrl Phreak said:
That wasn't the question. You seem to have difficulty with simple concepts... direct questions etc.
Click to expand...
This thread isn't about my abilities, this thread is about the bible. A book is a thing that you can set down and leave alone. If you don't like it, you aren't forced to tead it.
 
Jerry said:
This thread isn't about my abilities, this thread is about the bible. A book is a thing that you can set down and leave alone. If you don't like it, you aren't forced to tead it.
Click to expand...

That is not the point. I have read it and it is immoral.
 
zyzygy said:
That is not the point. I have read it and it is immoral.
Click to expand...
Morality is subjective, so if you find the bible to be immoral that means it's immoral to you, not immoral objectively. It's all a matter of opinion, so if you don't like the bible you're free to not read it.
 
"Morality is completely immoral."
 
Manny said:
"Morality is completely immoral."
Click to expand...


Now, that depends, doesn't. That statement makes is apparent that morality is at least subjective.
 
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
 
RAMOSS said:
Now, that depends, doesn't. That statement makes is apparent that morality is at least subjective.
Click to expand...
And it is wrong. It makes no sense... like the thread title which it parodies.
 
Manny said:
And it is wrong. It makes no sense... like the thread title which it parodies.
Click to expand...

AH, but it does make sense... because what is moral for one person, is immoral for another. For example, in the bible, it was moral to have slaves. Don't kid yourself that slavery back then was different that slavery in the 18th and 19th century. It wasn't.

Now, slavery is immoral.
 
RAMOSS said:
AH, but it does make sense... because what is moral for one person, is immoral for another. For example, in the bible, it was moral to have slaves. Don't kid yourself that slavery back then was different that slavery in the 18th and 19th century. It wasn't.

Now, slavery is immoral.
Click to expand...
I agree slavery is bad, and immoral. I don't kid myself about it.

You can't have a society if everyone has a different idea of what is moral. Individuation of morality leads to its downfall.
There has to be a common morality that works to make a civilization. Hence, "civility"...
 
Manny said:
I agree slavery is bad, and immoral. I don't kid myself about it.

You can't have a society if everyone has a different idea of what is moral. Individuation of morality leads to its downfall.
There has to be a common morality that works to make a civilization. Hence, "civility"...
Click to expand...

And that changes over time/place/society thus morals are subjective
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom