Christian_Debater
Christian_Debater's Forum Posts

Miss-Quoting BiblePosted 7 years Ago

At 5/15/2014 1:32:39 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2014 11:37:18 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/14/2014 11:20:35 PM, Christian_Debater wrote:
At 5/14/2014 10:59:23 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Yeah yeah, we have seen this all before.

When it says something or at least says something which could be used to support something you don't like.............hey person x is taking it out of context.

Let's take one example.......THOU SHALT NOT KILL. I mean that is pretty simple right ? or is it ?..................

Now what exactly does that mean or doesn't it mean ?

Does it mean you can't kill any living thing ?

Does it only apply to humans ?

Does it only apply to humans, but there are exemptions ?

IF there are exemptions what are those ? How are those exemptions determined ?

THOU SHALT NOT Kill I find is a favorite to use against abortion by christians.

But if you use the same THOU SHALT NOT KILL rule to condemn say dropping a nuclear bomb on Japan, HEY...................YOUR TAKING IT OUT OF CONTEXT !!!

And this is why you can make the bible pretty much say anything.

No... that is not what I'm talking about at all. Thou shall not kill means, do not kill. It's very simple.



What I am stating is this:

Charlie says, "Hey Lisa, lets go out to the bar. Just don't invite Clark, I hate him getting drunk and hurting himself. If anything, lets bring him back drinks later."

Lets take what he said now out of context:

Charlie says, "Hey Lisa, lets go out to the bar. Just don't invite Clark, I hate him."

Big difference.

You can make the bible say what you want it to, cause you can always restrict what it is saying by using the "context" clause or using it in a very unrestricted way by using no context.

See my THOU SHALT NOT KILL example.

To determine the meaning, you'll have to see how the command was "handled". In fact, it is best translated "Thou shalt do no murder". Obviously God does not consider wartime deaths to be a violation of the commandment, nor does He consider the killing of animals to be a violation.

There are plenty of examples of what is (and is not) considered "murder" in the Bible, and there is no need for any confusion on this point.

You are right about what you claim here.
Forums Home > Religion

Miss-Quoting BiblePosted 7 years Ago

At 5/14/2014 11:37:18 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/14/2014 11:20:35 PM, Christian_Debater wrote:
At 5/14/2014 10:59:23 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Yeah yeah, we have seen this all before.

When it says something or at least says something which could be used to support something you don't like.............hey person x is taking it out of context.

Let's take one example.......THOU SHALT NOT KILL. I mean that is pretty simple right ? or is it ?..................

Now what exactly does that mean or doesn't it mean ?

Does it mean you can't kill any living thing ?

Does it only apply to humans ?

Does it only apply to humans, but there are exemptions ?

IF there are exemptions what are those ? How are those exemptions determined ?

THOU SHALT NOT Kill I find is a favorite to use against abortion by christians.

But if you use the same THOU SHALT NOT KILL rule to condemn say dropping a nuclear bomb on Japan, HEY...................YOUR TAKING IT OUT OF CONTEXT !!!

And this is why you can make the bible pretty much say anything.

No... that is not what I'm talking about at all. Thou shall not kill means, do not kill. It's very simple.



What I am stating is this:

Charlie says, "Hey Lisa, lets go out to the bar. Just don't invite Clark, I hate him getting drunk and hurting himself. If anything, lets bring him back drinks later."

Lets take what he said now out of context:

Charlie says, "Hey Lisa, lets go out to the bar. Just don't invite Clark, I hate him."

Big difference.

You can make the bible say what you want it to, cause you can always restrict what it is saying by using the "context" clause or using it in a very unrestricted way by using no context.

See my THOU SHALT NOT KILL example.

Well you can do that to anything. I can just take your sentence and turn it to "KILL". My main point is that the Bible is complicated, so to take it out of context is a bad thing to do.
Forums Home > Religion

Miss-Quoting BiblePosted 7 years Ago

At 5/14/2014 10:59:23 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Yeah yeah, we have seen this all before.

When it says something or at least says something which could be used to support something you don't like.............hey person x is taking it out of context.

Let's take one example.......THOU SHALT NOT KILL. I mean that is pretty simple right ? or is it ?..................

Now what exactly does that mean or doesn't it mean ?

Does it mean you can't kill any living thing ?

Does it only apply to humans ?

Does it only apply to humans, but there are exemptions ?

IF there are exemptions what are those ? How are those exemptions determined ?

THOU SHALT NOT Kill I find is a favorite to use against abortion by christians.

But if you use the same THOU SHALT NOT KILL rule to condemn say dropping a nuclear bomb on Japan, HEY...................YOUR TAKING IT OUT OF CONTEXT !!!

And this is why you can make the bible pretty much say anything.

No... that is not what I'm talking about at all. Thou shall not kill means, do not kill. It's very simple.

What I am stating is this:

Charlie says, "Hey Lisa, lets go out to the bar. Just don't invite Clark, I hate him getting drunk and hurting himself. If anything, lets bring him back drinks later."

Lets take what he said now out of context:

Charlie says, "Hey Lisa, lets go out to the bar. Just don't invite Clark, I hate him."

Big difference.
Forums Home > Religion

Miss-Quoting BiblePosted 7 years Ago

At 5/14/2014 11:05:32 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/14/2014 10:34:31 PM, Christian_Debater wrote:
Just since there is a ton of religious topics here, and most of them on Christianity, I thought I'd put something out here that is really interesting.

Basically, a lot of people who debate against the Bible quote out of context. Not everyone, but there is a huge problem with doing this.

I'll give an example:

Deuteronomy 28:57
King James Version (KJV)

57 And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates.

So you may be asking, "Is this what Christianity condones?" let's get some context.

Deuteronomy 28
King James Version (KJV)

28 And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the Lord thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth:

2 And all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God.

God basically lists the blessings.

15 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:

16 Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field.

17 Cursed shall be thy basket and thy store.

18 Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.

19 Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out.

20 The Lord shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me.

Basically God's saying to not make him mad. He has saved your butt several times, he brought you out of slavery, you made him a promise to worship him, so just do it. (On a side note, even though they went against him, he was extremely nice to them anyways and didn't do most of the stuff here).

54 So that the man that is tender among you, and very delicate, his eye shall be evil toward his brother, and toward the wife of his bosom, and toward the remnant of his children which he shall leave:

55 So that he will not give to any of them of the flesh of his children whom he shall eat: because he hath nothing left him in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee in all thy gates.

56 The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter,

57 And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates.

So basically, what has been going on in this chapter? God said for them to obey his commandments. If not, X Y and Z will happen. Some of these things do happen in the Bible. The Jews go against God and stuff happens (just read Judges). However, this is saying something else. If you leave God, and don't obey him, you'll basically do this because of what will happen - basically, God is saying that I am protecting you and giving you food and everything. If you don't want it that is fine, but this is what will happen to you.

However, God is awesome and never goes that far anyways even after everything the Jews do to him in the Old Testament.

My main point, when you misquote the Bible out of context, it has entirely different meanings.

On a side note, Christians treat God badly at times too. We're all sinners =/.

The in and out of context both say god is a horrible vindictive sociopath. I don't see the problem.

Not really, I guess you didn't read everything I said :/
Forums Home > Religion

Miss-Quoting BiblePosted 7 years Ago

Miss-Quoting The* Bible.

Don't know how the "The" part got deleted.
Forums Home > Religion

Miss-Quoting BiblePosted 7 years Ago

Just since there is a ton of religious topics here, and most of them on Christianity, I thought I'd put something out here that is really interesting.

Basically, a lot of people who debate against the Bible quote out of context. Not everyone, but there is a huge problem with doing this.

I'll give an example:

Deuteronomy 28:57
King James Version (KJV)

57 And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates.

So you may be asking, "Is this what Christianity condones?" let's get some context.

Deuteronomy 28
King James Version (KJV)

28 And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the Lord thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth:

2 And all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God.

God basically lists the blessings.

15 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:

16 Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field.

17 Cursed shall be thy basket and thy store.

18 Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.

19 Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out.

20 The Lord shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me.

Basically God's saying to not make him mad. He has saved your butt several times, he brought you out of slavery, you made him a promise to worship him, so just do it. (On a side note, even though they went against him, he was extremely nice to them anyways and didn't do most of the stuff here).

54 So that the man that is tender among you, and very delicate, his eye shall be evil toward his brother, and toward the wife of his bosom, and toward the remnant of his children which he shall leave:

55 So that he will not give to any of them of the flesh of his children whom he shall eat: because he hath nothing left him in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee in all thy gates.

56 The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter,

57 And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates.

So basically, what has been going on in this chapter? God said for them to obey his commandments. If not, X Y and Z will happen. Some of these things do happen in the Bible. The Jews go against God and stuff happens (just read Judges). However, this is saying something else. If you leave God, and don't obey him, you'll basically do this because of what will happen - basically, God is saying that I am protecting you and giving you food and everything. If you don't want it that is fine, but this is what will happen to you.

However, God is awesome and never goes that far anyways even after everything the Jews do to him in the Old Testament.

My main point, when you misquote the Bible out of context, it has entirely different meanings.

On a side note, Christians treat God badly at times too. We're all sinners =/.
Forums Home > Religion

Atheists right, Scientific errors in religionPosted 7 years Ago

So debateuser has yet to accept Mhykiel's challenge?
Forums Home > Religion

God is evilPosted 7 years Ago

At 5/14/2014 8:46:06 PM, nonprophet wrote:
If there really was a God that created us, he (it) has to be the most evil thing that
ever existed.
He creates living beings that are self-aware. He then gives us certain instincts that compel us to do certain things.
One instinct is the survival instinct which compels us to do whatever it takes to
survive. Yet, this same "creator" made survival 100% impossible due to the fact
that every living thing dies.
Nobody asks to be born, so we are forced to exist and try to survive even though
it is futile to even try.
In addition, we are compelled by hunger to nourish ourselves. The only way to
do that is to consume other living things. That means we must kill (plants or animals) against their own survival instinct, in order to try to survive ourselves. Yes, I do believe plants have a survival instinct. Plants try to grow towards sunlight in order to survive, for example.
Another thing that we are compelled to do is have sex and make new self-aware
beings (without them asking for it), so that they too are forced into the same situation of futile survival.
This whole system is really just torture. Here we are, given no choice but to either
kill and try to survive another day or end up not existing anymore.
Also, the "reward" for surviving is the slow deterioration of our bodies causing us
pain, blindness, sickness and many other problems to deal with.
If God created life, he also created pain and suffering with diseases and old age.
So, if God really "loves" us, why did he create this endless cycle of pain, suffering
and the futile desire to survive?
The only reasonable answer is that he ENJOYS making us struggle, which is sadistic, not loving.

Interesting perspective. Would you like to further talk about it - more specifically, Christianity?

I'd be glad to answer all of your questions, but I'm going to ask first if you really want an answer, or if you want to just bash God. I can't force you to listen afterall.

Moreover, after reading over your argument in our debate, you are improving in your debating skills. Congratulations.
Forums Home > Religion

Get rid of DDO VotingPosted 7 years Ago

At 5/13/2014 11:48:48 AM, nonprophet wrote:
Here is an example of a debate I should win, because my opponent broke the rules I set up in round 1.

http://www.debate.org...

As you can see, I'm losing this debate and that's the major reason why I don't allow voting anymore.

If I can't win a debate where the rules were broken, then forget the whole idea of voting.


Here's another example of why I don't allow votes anymore:

http://www.debate.org...

I declined the debate on the grounds that I was already debating that exact same thing with the exact same user. So instead of respecting my decline to debate, he just went on "debating" and ignoring my decline.

And the voters gave him a free win for such conduct.

If that's what voters think is fair, there will be no more voting on my debates.

nonprophet : http://www.debate.org...

That is a debate I had with bluesteel. I think it was unfair, and bluesteel invited her friend to vote on the debate. Am I complaining and calling it bias all the time? No. Sure, I think it was unfair, but that just happens.

Now let me show you the opposite : http://www.debate.org...

Personally, I reported it because I do think it was bias (especially since he was Christian himself). This happens.

Basically, nothing is perfect nonprophet. Only God is perfect. Don't expect there to be no flaw in DDO's voting. The only thing you are doing for yourself now, is making more enemies.

Personally, I won't be an enemy of yours, I love everyone like my brother and sister. However, not everyone is the same. So I would suggest you stop trying to make enemies nonprophet.
Forums Home > Miscellaneous

Having a separate section for references?Posted 7 years Ago

At 5/12/2014 11:35:43 AM, Envisage wrote:
What do you guys think about having an additional section to debates (similar to the sig section on forum posts), where you get an additional say 2,000 exclusively for posting your references.

That way references do not contribute to the overall character count, but also one cannot abuse this to post additional material.

I't would help a lot in scientific debates where a large number of references are often used and eat up a lot of space for arguments, and often one side uses a lot more space for references than the other.

Sounds great.

What if instead of a character limit (because some links are huge for example, this one: http://images.search.yahoo.com... ) It is used like some websites use pictures. Basically, you post a link, it finds the link. You have to cite something from the link, or else it cannot be put in the reference section. This would also get rid of useless references.
Forums Home > Debate.org

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.