• 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!

Anti-Bullying Speaker Curses Christian Teens[W:165; 667]

I don't know why you think I am lying. Actually, I completely fail to see any logic in your accusation whatsoever.

Christians believe it because they have faith in the teachings of their Church.

Because.
It's a lie because you forgot the part after "because." Because is not an answer. Because they have faith is barely an answer.
 
It's actually very different for the two reasons I listed.

It's not all that different. Criteria was established and they based their decisions on that criteria.
 
It's a lie because you forgot the part after "because." Because is not an answer. Because they have faith is barely an answer.

That doesn't make it a lie...it only makes it something you disagree with. Faith is because. They believe...because.
 
No, it isn't. The Bible is a collection of divinely inspired writings. It wouldn't make any sense to include works that were not divinely inspired.

So the scrolls, letters, fictions, poetry (Psalms) NOT included were what... not divinely inspired?

How did they determine that? Did certain scrolls Glow?:roll::roll:

It was politics, people arguing, threatening and compromising, over a 30 year period that led to 27 books becoming the new testament canon--Bishops, Archbishops, a pope and an emperor all getting their 2 cents in.


If I were putting together a cookbook, would it makes sense to include instructions on how to rebuild a carburetor? You do know what a carburetor is, right?

You really know nothing about the history of the bible.

Many so-called Christians never bother to ask or care how the bible came to be. They are spoon-fed a false and misleading interpretations. Evangelical pastors speak in mega-churches as if they're an authority on ancient history, but their knowledge is often wrong and totally lacking in relevant historical context.
 
This thread is about whether the so-called "anti-bully" Savage was a bully in this one circumstance.

Was he?

Should a keynote speaker invited to talk about alternative social media turn his 15 minutes into an anti-Christian screed? Was this the time or place or audience?

I think that those who stand on different sides of the larger debate can at least agree on whether the venue was appropriate.
 
That's not what happened. Watch the tape.

What tape? As I've asked previously, has the full speech been made available? I've read that among his opening remarks Savage talked about how hot his husband looked in a Speedo, and I guess we've all seen the "Bible is B.S." snippet?

If you have a link to the full text, I'd be really grateful. I'm interested in the larger context.
 
So the scrolls, letters, fictions, poetry (Psalms) NOT included were what... not divinely inspired?

How did they determine that? Did certain scrolls Glow?:roll::roll:

It was politics, people arguing, threatening and compromising, over a 30 year period that led to 27 books becoming the new testament canon--Bishops, Archbishops, a pope and an emperor all getting their 2 cents in.

They had access to information back then that we don't have to make their decision on what's heresy and what's not. If the same process happened right now, Mormonism would be considered heresy

BYU Law Blog: JOSEPH SMITH'S ARREST RECORDS FOUND

We still have his arrest records as a scam artist

ldsjsjai.gif
 
A committee deciding what's divinely inspired is quite different than a committee deciding whether or not Ramses wrote some document, especially when the people use the former's conclusions to affect so many other people.

Not really. If you believe that something can be divinely inspired, then why couldn't the committee be?

If none of it ever was, then it doesn't matter.

In any case, it's not like "divinely inspired" was the whole criterion. There was plenty of actual, bona fide, academic authentication happening.
 
Not really. If you believe that something can be divinely inspired, then why couldn't the committee be?

If none of it ever was, then it doesn't matter.

In any case, it's not like "divinely inspired" was the whole criterion. There was plenty of actual, bona fide, academic authentication happening.
It's actually completely different for the reason I listed: You're evaluating something that can't be objectively validated and experienced and isn't even "of this world" if it even exists. There's an obvious distance between evaluating something like that and reading documents left by Ancient Egyptians. If you can't see that, you don't want to it because it's so freaking obvious that I can't believe this is even a debate.
 
No, it isn't. The Bible is a collection of divinely inspired writings. It wouldn't make any sense to include works that were not divinely inspired.


If I were putting together a cookbook, would it makes sense to include instructions on how to rebuild a carburetor? You do know what a carburetor is, right?


"Scripture: The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based" (Ambrose Bierce.)
 
It's actually completely different for the reason I listed: You're evaluating something that can't be objectively validated and experienced and isn't even "of this world" if it even exists. There's an obvious distance between evaluating something like that and reading documents left by Ancient Egyptians. If you can't see that, you don't want to it because it's so freaking obvious that I can't believe this is even a debate.


They evaluated it against criteria that they established. Whether or not the criteria is subjective or objective is irrelevant. Adherence to the criteria would be objectively observed.
 
It's actually completely different for the reason I listed: You're evaluating something that can't be objectively validated and experienced and isn't even "of this world" if it even exists. There's an obvious distance between evaluating something like that and reading documents left by Ancient Egyptians. If you can't see that, you don't want to it because it's so freaking obvious that I can't believe this is even a debate.

Actually, I think you're missing MY points.

First of all, the "committee," such as it was, rejected things as false mostly because they couldn't be authenticated sufficiently, or that they conflicted with the bulk of the rest of scripture. If, say, four potential Gospels all agreed substantially, and a fifth said something radically different, which one do you think is the outlier? THIS sort of thing led to books being left out more often than anything else. Do you find this an invalid approach? Do you think such committees do not/would not take the same approach today?

Second, you say: "You're evaluating something that can't be objectively validated and experienced and isn't even "of this world" if it even exists."

Which is part of my point. If there IS divine inspiration, it would certainly make sense that it would "inspire" such a "committee." If there ISN'T, then it doesn't matter, at all. Faith has never required scientific proof.
 
Which is part of my point. If there IS divine inspiration, it would certainly make sense that it would "inspire" such a "committee." If there ISN'T, then it doesn't matter, at all. Faith has never required scientific proof.
Well now, someone should document this "divinely inspired committee" at work, having them work in isolation with each member receiving this "inspiration" simultaneously. It could go a long way in showing that faith is real.
 
I do agree - he shouldn't have done it.

But I don't think it's the same thing as the bullying that my son experienced at school.

Nor do I disagree with his point - but it just wasn't appropriate.

I also didnt' realize that they were taken to this assembly by their teacher and it wasn't just a 'open to all who want to attend' type thing (but would that really matter? I don't think so) - I think he was an ass about it. He could have discussed it a bit - maybe received some backlash - but not like this with just using a different approach to the point.

I honestly think his point can be made without actually referring directly to the Bible.


At last, someone who has sound reasoning. Thank you. :)

I don't care what people believe. I don't have a hatred for non-religious or religious folks. I don't care what folks read or don't read. Folks are free to do as they please. Believe what you want, or don't believe, it's your decision, not mine. Just don't order/expect me to participate, then we've got a problem.

I do care, very, very much, if you hurt kids.
 
Which is the same feeling Savage has.


Really? If Savage felt that we all have the right to believe as we please, but most important in our beliefs was not hurting kids, I and everyone else wouldn't be here, yes?
 
Really? If Savage felt that we all have the right to believe as we please, but most important in our beliefs was not hurting kids, I and everyone else wouldn't be here, yes?
I don't know why you feel the need to complicate things, the most basic point here is that Savage is against kids being bullied, that is the most basic part of his message.

His method might have been in error, but don't let that distract you from the basic message.
 
I don't know why you feel the need to complicate things, the most basic point here is that Savage is against kids being bullied, that is the most basic part of his message.

His method might have been in error, but don't let that distract you from the basic message.



I'm not gonna do the "Gimmie Square Dance" with you. We've done this before, yes? You want to change the subject and I don't. But thanks for your interest. :mrgreen:
 
I'm not gonna do the "Gimmie Square Dance" with you. We've done this before, yes? You want to change the subject and I don't. But thanks for your interest. :mrgreen:
Your saying "I do care, very, very much, if you hurt kids" and my saying that Savage feels the same and pointing out it is the most basic part of his message is not changing the subject.
 
but he was the only one doing it at the time.
No, he is not, he pointed out that people who are bullying and using the Bible to justify it are hypocrites....you righties are saying he is a hypocrite too.....so no, he is not the "only one".
 
Back
Top Bottom