Here is part 2 of my debate with Adam. As of today He has not responded but I will post when or if he does.
Adam Wilson
first, I have not changed topic. I was merely responding to things YOU said. The exact same thing that you have been doing to me. it was not to take anything away from the original topic of thinking that Dan Cathy is intolerant. I stick by that assertion; and I would love for you to try to convince me that trying to suppress a group of people based on their orientation is NOT intolerant.
Second, based strictly on the definition YOU provided earlier for tolerance, it does NOT involve someone's actions, only beliefs and opinions. I am tolerant of people's opinions and beliefs. Dan Cathy is not. He is using his company to actively attempt to suppress a group of people. I will not support his ACTIONS but I am tolerant of his beliefs no matter if I think they are wrong or not.
Third, the imminent comment was based on your words, not the bible's. You said it was imminent. you decided to not use the actual definition of imminent because it doesn't fit your beliefs. you are changing the definition of imminent by saying "in theological terms". Is there a theological dictionary? I haven't read one. You changed the definition of imminent to fit your argument and try to disprove what I said. you can't use definitions against me and then when I use it against you, you say "well in theological terms..." and then those passages you mentioned merely meant that no one will know when jesus will return. just like no one knows when lightning will strike.
fourth, you said, "jesus certainly affirms that marriage is between a man and a woman." but he does
fourth, you said, "jesus certainly affirms that marriage is between a man and a woman." but he does
NOT say that it is ONLY between a man and a woman. I’m not saying that's not what he meant, but it's not what he said. per the bible, you are to not take anything away or add anything. so you have to go by exactly.
fifth, you said god handed down the moral and ceremonial laws to separate them from the pagans. I didn't see any scripture "confirming" that assertion. Please provide biblical support for that comment. 1 Corinthians 6 also says that wrongdoers, adulterers, idolators, slanderers, the greedy, drunkards, swindlers, and sexually immoral will not enter the kingdom of heaven. but Paul goes on to say that the people of Corinth were washed which most interpret to mean have been cleaned and will enter the kingdom of heaven. so as long as homosexuals are baptized (washed) then they will be allowed to enter correct?
Sixth, you said I changed the topic AGAIN. and again, i was merely responding to what you said because you told me to repent. which is your not so subtle way of pushing your beliefs on me. I understand that you feel commanded by God to share your faith with me but I do not feel the same. If I have an old book that tells me to smack you in the face. should I do it? I understand that is a big leap with what you are doing but it brings me back to the point that Dan Cathy is pushing is beliefs on other people. not everyone is christian and they have a right to believe what they want to believe. you or Dan Cathy have no right to force your beliefs onto other people. .
Seventh, no i am not atheist. I am agnostic. I have no proof of an all-knowing, all powerful god and an ancient book written by men is not proof (even if the writers of that book say it was inspired by God), therefore I am 100% sure that I don't know if there is or isn't a God. If I told you today that God told me to tell you that homosexuality was ok, would you believe me? then why do you believe someone else that says it simply because it happened long ago? and no, i do not believe in miracles. I do not believe that a virgin became pregnant, I do not believe that water can be turned to wine, I do not believe that someone can walk on water. that is magic. I do not believe in magic whether it is said to happen today, 50 years ago or 2,000 years ago.
you then say that god gives us free will. there is a paradox in that assertion. Free will cannot exist if God is all knowing and all powerful. you merely have the illusion of free will. If god is all knowing and all powerful, then he knew every decision were you going to make before he created you correct? If you say no, then you are limiting god's knowledge therefore removing the "all-knowing" tag from his title. If you say yes, then you have no free will. your path has already been laid out for you when he created you. again, I'm not changing the topic, only responding to what you are saying.
next, you say that people will not experience torture but torment. So are you saying that people in hell will not be in excruciating pain for eternity? that seems like torture to me.
and you misinterpreted what I said. By me saying he should keep his opinions to himself, I was meaning that he doesn’t need to force his beliefs on others. the fact that you call me a bigot is laughable. I gladly support your right to your opinion but if you give your money to a group that wants to keep me, my friends, a group of people based on sexual orientation, color, religion, or culture down then I will proudly draw the line there. I am tolerant of ideas, not actions. if you can't see the difference then i feel sorry for you.
and lastly, I would LOVE for you to explain how a man marrying a man is a "DISASTER" waiting to happen. do you have any proof of this? or just assumptions?
you then say that god gives us free will. there is a paradox in that assertion. Free will cannot exist if God is all knowing and all powerful. you merely have the illusion of free will. If god is all knowing and all powerful, then he knew every decision were you going to make before he created you correct? If you say no, then you are limiting god's knowledge therefore removing the "all-knowing" tag from his title. If you say yes, then you have no free will. your path has already been laid out for you when he created you. again, I'm not changing the topic, only responding to what you are saying.
next, you say that people will not experience torture but torment. So are you saying that people in hell will not be in excruciating pain for eternity? that seems like torture to me.
and you misinterpreted what I said. By me saying he should keep his opinions to himself, I was meaning that he doesn’t need to force his beliefs on others. the fact that you call me a bigot is laughable. I gladly support your right to your opinion but if you give your money to a group that wants to keep me, my friends, a group of people based on sexual orientation, color, religion, or culture down then I will proudly draw the line there. I am tolerant of ideas, not actions. if you can't see the difference then i feel sorry for you.
and lastly, I would LOVE for you to explain how a man marrying a man is a "DISASTER" waiting to happen. do you have any proof of this? or just assumptions?
How would a same sex couple getting married affect you in any way? please explain. I would also like to explain how the laws which per the constitution shouldn't be sponsored by any religion (which is why crosses are being removed from govt. property because is sponsors christianity), can't allow the same rights to gay people as they afford to straight people. that's what this whole thing is about. homosexuals just want the same rights that you have. how would you feel if someone of a different religion said "well I have this religion that says you can only marry someone of the same race as you and they have to be the same age so we're going to make it illegal to do anything different." you wouldn't like it because that's not what you believe yet that's exactly what Cathy is doing to others. He feels his beliefs are better than everyone else's and everyone needs to live by his beliefs. People who support Cathy are supporting oppression. Do you support oppression? Do you support withholding rights from a group of people? The same thing happened during the Civil rights era. "Christians" were strongly opposed to desegregation because they thought blacks were less than whites. Nowadays people are doing the same things except now they are doing it against a different group of people and doing it through different ways. I know they aren't putting fire hoses to people but they are using social media to spew their hate.
I do love the dialogue and will gladly keep conversing with you if you'd like. You are by far the most intelligent person I’ve debated with on this and I’m 99.9% positive you have done way more studying than me. I love the challenge. This was sent from my iphone so I hope I don’t have any grammatical errors. I hate to hear from the grammar police again. I have two warrants out already. :)
I do love the dialogue and will gladly keep conversing with you if you'd like. You are by far the most intelligent person I’ve debated with on this and I’m 99.9% positive you have done way more studying than me. I love the challenge. This was sent from my iphone so I hope I don’t have any grammatical errors. I hate to hear from the grammar police again. I have two warrants out already. :)
Adam,
Good stuff my friend. Our posts keep getting longer and loner ....haha In response to your coments you said
"I would love for you to try to convince me that trying to suppress a group of people based on their orientation is NOT intolerant."
This again would go into the debate on gay-marriage which we can get into later, but of course I do not agree it is based on orientation but behavior. However, my argument was not complaining that we all need to be tolerant and have showed how (which you agreed) that your argument was self defeating. To maintain your postion about it being intolerant then you also need to admit you are not tolerant of those who would disagree with you on this. The whole point is that the argument from "tolerance" is a failure.
You said
"Second, based strictly on the definition YOU provided earlier for tolerance, it does NOT involve someone's actions, only beliefs and opinions. I am tolerant of people's opinions and beliefs. Dan Cathy is not."
No you are not sir, as all could see in the last post you did where you said
""I'm not upset that Cathy has an opinion however I think he needs to keep his opinion in his house or in his church."
This is NOT tolerance. Secondly to say you are tolerant of ideas but not actions is absurd. Actions come from ideas. You again change the definition of tolerance to fit your argument. If you do not see the problem then there is not much more I can say as I have gone to great lengths to show why your first argument failed (Which you already agreed with).
Next you said
"the imminent comment was based on your words, not the bible's. You said it was imminent."
The word "Trinity" is not in the Bible either, neither does it need to be in order for the concepts and doctrine to be taught. The question is whether the concept is found, not the word and I posted 2 or 3 scriptures and expounded on the context of the verses in question.
Next you said
"you decided to not use the actual definition of imminent because it doesn't fit your beliefs. you are changing the definition of imminent by saying "in theological terms". Is there a theological dictionary?"
This one took me a little by surprise. There are TONS of theological dictionaries. Here is a link to Amazon with at least 20 different ones.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=theological+dictionary
Many people may not know because Christians push a very anti-intellectualism in much of the culture today but doing theology is hard work and study. People like myself and DeAngelo Burse have spent years going to school and have yet to even scratch the surface. Hopefully in this exchange Adam you will see Christianity in a different light then maybe you did before in that theology is a lot more involved then maybe you had thought. Growing up in the church I had no clue theology could be so deep and involved.
Next you said
"I haven't read one. You changed the definition of imminent to fit your argument and try to disprove what I said. you can't use definitions against me and then when I use it against you, you say "well in theological terms..."
Sorry but yes I can. There are words used in everyday language that just do not have the same meanings as everyday normal usage.
Here is a great article dealing with this doctrine that you can read more about here and you will see I am not playing word games
"The primary thought expressed by imminency is that something important is likely to happen, and could do so without delay. While it may not be immediate nor necessarily soon, it is next on the program and may take place at any time. "
http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/doctrine-of-imminency-is-it-biblical
Next you said
" and then those passages you mentioned merely meant that no one will know when jesus will return. just like no one knows when lightning will strike. "
That is THE POINT! That is what the doctrine teaches and you just proved my point!
Next you said
"you said, "jesus certainly affirms that marriage is between a man and a woman." but he does NOT say that it is ONLY between a man and a woman. I’m not saying that's not what he meant, but it's not what he said. per the bible, you are to not take anything away or add anything. so you have to go by exactly."
1-Jesus is not telling us what marriage is not, he is telling us what it IS.
2-Jesus does tells us in positive terms what marriage IS
3-One must look at the whole of marriage and going to Genesis 3 which is where Jesus quoted the institution of marriage is established.
Next you said
"you said god handed down the moral and ceremonial laws to separate them from the pagans. I didn't see any scripture "confirming" that assertion. Please provide biblical support for that comment."
Not a problem. This is basic Christian theology and maybe the Bible will make more sense to you when you see some of the central themes in scripture. Here is where you find them
1- The Moral Law or the Ten Commandments. This part of the Law governed the moral life giving guidance to Israel in principles of right and wrong in relation to God and man (Exodus 20:1-17).
2- The Judgments, or the Social Law. This part of the Law governed Israel in her secular, social, political, and economic life (Exodus 21:1–23:13).
3-The Ordinances or the Ceremonial Law. This was the religious portion of Law which guided and provided for Israel in her worship and spiritual relationship and fellowship with God. It included the priesthood, tabernacle and sacrifices (Exodus 25:-31: Leviticus).
The laws were given to the nation of Israel which was fulfilling the Abrhamic covenant made in Genesis 12-15-17. For more on this here is a great study
http://bible.org/article/mosaic-law-its-function-and-purpose-new-testament
Part 2 on the way
Good stuff my friend. Our posts keep getting longer and loner ....haha In response to your coments you said
"I would love for you to try to convince me that trying to suppress a group of people based on their orientation is NOT intolerant."
This again would go into the debate on gay-marriage which we can get into later, but of course I do not agree it is based on orientation but behavior. However, my argument was not complaining that we all need to be tolerant and have showed how (which you agreed) that your argument was self defeating. To maintain your postion about it being intolerant then you also need to admit you are not tolerant of those who would disagree with you on this. The whole point is that the argument from "tolerance" is a failure.
You said
"Second, based strictly on the definition YOU provided earlier for tolerance, it does NOT involve someone's actions, only beliefs and opinions. I am tolerant of people's opinions and beliefs. Dan Cathy is not."
No you are not sir, as all could see in the last post you did where you said
""I'm not upset that Cathy has an opinion however I think he needs to keep his opinion in his house or in his church."
This is NOT tolerance. Secondly to say you are tolerant of ideas but not actions is absurd. Actions come from ideas. You again change the definition of tolerance to fit your argument. If you do not see the problem then there is not much more I can say as I have gone to great lengths to show why your first argument failed (Which you already agreed with).
Next you said
"the imminent comment was based on your words, not the bible's. You said it was imminent."
The word "Trinity" is not in the Bible either, neither does it need to be in order for the concepts and doctrine to be taught. The question is whether the concept is found, not the word and I posted 2 or 3 scriptures and expounded on the context of the verses in question.
Next you said
"you decided to not use the actual definition of imminent because it doesn't fit your beliefs. you are changing the definition of imminent by saying "in theological terms". Is there a theological dictionary?"
This one took me a little by surprise. There are TONS of theological dictionaries. Here is a link to Amazon with at least 20 different ones.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=theological+dictionary
Many people may not know because Christians push a very anti-intellectualism in much of the culture today but doing theology is hard work and study. People like myself and DeAngelo Burse have spent years going to school and have yet to even scratch the surface. Hopefully in this exchange Adam you will see Christianity in a different light then maybe you did before in that theology is a lot more involved then maybe you had thought. Growing up in the church I had no clue theology could be so deep and involved.
Next you said
"I haven't read one. You changed the definition of imminent to fit your argument and try to disprove what I said. you can't use definitions against me and then when I use it against you, you say "well in theological terms..."
Sorry but yes I can. There are words used in everyday language that just do not have the same meanings as everyday normal usage.
Here is a great article dealing with this doctrine that you can read more about here and you will see I am not playing word games
"The primary thought expressed by imminency is that something important is likely to happen, and could do so without delay. While it may not be immediate nor necessarily soon, it is next on the program and may take place at any time. "
http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/doctrine-of-imminency-is-it-biblical
Next you said
" and then those passages you mentioned merely meant that no one will know when jesus will return. just like no one knows when lightning will strike. "
That is THE POINT! That is what the doctrine teaches and you just proved my point!
Next you said
"you said, "jesus certainly affirms that marriage is between a man and a woman." but he does NOT say that it is ONLY between a man and a woman. I’m not saying that's not what he meant, but it's not what he said. per the bible, you are to not take anything away or add anything. so you have to go by exactly."
1-Jesus is not telling us what marriage is not, he is telling us what it IS.
2-Jesus does tells us in positive terms what marriage IS
3-One must look at the whole of marriage and going to Genesis 3 which is where Jesus quoted the institution of marriage is established.
Next you said
"you said god handed down the moral and ceremonial laws to separate them from the pagans. I didn't see any scripture "confirming" that assertion. Please provide biblical support for that comment."
Not a problem. This is basic Christian theology and maybe the Bible will make more sense to you when you see some of the central themes in scripture. Here is where you find them
1- The Moral Law or the Ten Commandments. This part of the Law governed the moral life giving guidance to Israel in principles of right and wrong in relation to God and man (Exodus 20:1-17).
2- The Judgments, or the Social Law. This part of the Law governed Israel in her secular, social, political, and economic life (Exodus 21:1–23:13).
3-The Ordinances or the Ceremonial Law. This was the religious portion of Law which guided and provided for Israel in her worship and spiritual relationship and fellowship with God. It included the priesthood, tabernacle and sacrifices (Exodus 25:-31: Leviticus).
The laws were given to the nation of Israel which was fulfilling the Abrhamic covenant made in Genesis 12-15-17. For more on this here is a great study
http://bible.org/article/mosaic-law-its-function-and-purpose-new-testament
Part 2 on the way
I would ask you to hold off until I get part 2 up so its not confusing, thanks :)
No worries. I have to wait anyway so I can formulate a decent response. I do however want to go ahead and respond to one portion. There is a BIG difference between having an idea and acting on it. If I have an idea about how to rob a bank it is different than if I actually do it. If you believe that being gay is wrong then that's your prerogative. However, when you take that idea and start limiting the rights of others, it crosses a line. You are intelligent enough to see the difference. And I didn't change the definition. I am merely referring to the exact definition that you posted. Having ideas is not the same as committing actions.
Devin Pellew
You said
"1 Corinthians 6 also says that wrongdoers, adulterers, idolators, slanderers, the greedy, drunkards, swindlers, and sexually immoral will not enter the kingdom of heaven. but Paul goes on to say that the people of Corinth were washed which most interpret to mean have been cleaned and will enter the kingdom of heaven. so as long as homosexuals are baptized (washed) then they will be allowed to enter correct? "
To be baptized is a symbol as circumcision was of being dead to your old self and raised with Christ. To be a Christian is to realize that you are sinful, wicked and need a savior. One must repent which means to turn from their sins and follow Christ alone. Jesus tells us what it means to be a follower of Christ
Mathew 16:24 "Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."
Matthew 10:38 and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me."
Luke 14:27 And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple."
John 14:21 Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."
John 14:23 Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him."
1 John 2:3 We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands."
So to just go get baptized and think that they will be with Christ for eternity is not taught in scriptures. We know we know Him by our obedience and thus if one was a true Christian they would abandon the homosexual life style. Not saying one will not fall or be tempted, but when it happens as a Christian you are grieved and broken over your sin. Hopefully this answers your question
Next you said
" no i am not atheist. I am agnostic. I have no proof of an all-knowing, all powerful god "
I would ask you then how do you explain
1-Origin of the universe
2-Fine tuning of the universe
3-Origin of life
4-Complexity in biological systems including Irreducible complexity
5-The failure of Gradualism and neo-darwinism
6-The Argument for morality
7-The existence of metaphysical properties such as minds, laws of logic, and objective moral values.
8-Why is there something rather than nothing
You may not know of arguments for the existence of God but to say "There is no evidence" is a pretty bold claim. The fact you may not know is one thing, to assert that there is no evidence is a much stronger claim. I would be certainly willing to do a debate on this topic if you are interested and would like to see your response to the 8 points I mentioned.
Next you said
"and an ancient book written by men is not proof (even if the writers of that book say it was inspired by God)"
Whether the book is old or not has no bearring on whether it is true. Secondly to say it is not proof would mean you can give a better answer to the 8 points listed above through a naturalistic explanation. Secondly you have not at all dealt with the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. You can not simply dismiss all the arguments and claim there is no evidence for it. This again is going to go back to whether God exists. If God exists then it is at least possible that the Bible is His word and so I think that is where we need to go.
"therefore I am 100% sure that I don't know if there is or isn't a God"
Well good, then at least you are open and I would say we need to examine arguments for the existence of God.
Next you said
" If I told you today that God told me to tell you that homosexuality was ok, would you believe me? "
No I would not based on the attributes of God.
1-The attribute of God's immutability is that God does not change in his ontological nature and can not undergo any change (Malachi 3:6) and neither does He change His mind (Numbers 23:19).
2-You are not a prophet of God
3-Hebrews 1 is clear that there are not any more prophets and so God does not speak as He did giving new revelation. The canon is closed.
Next you said
"then why do you believe someone else that says it simply because it happened long ago?""
The Quran was written long ago as well, that wouldnt make it true. I believe it based on the fact I think Theism explains the 8 things I listed earlier, and I have already mentioned these 3 points of why I believe the Bible which you did not even address but glossed right over them
1-The NT is the best attested work in ainceint history with over 5,700 manuscripts in Greek alone
2-The events that happened are recorded closer to the actual events then any work in ainceint history
3-The evidence for the death, burial and Resurrection of Jesus
Next you said
"and no, i do not believe in miracles. I do not believe that a virgin became pregnant, I do not believe that water can be turned to wine, I do not believe that someone can walk on water. that is magic."
No it is not magic, it would be a miracle. What the Atheist believes is even worse then magic in that they believe the universe came into existence from nothing and by nothing. At least in magic you have a magician who pulls the rabbit from the hat. In Atheism you dont even have the magician. Please explain how you deal with the 8 points mentioned earlier, this is where the debate hinges.
Next you said
"I do not believe in magic whether it is said to happen today, 50 years ago or 2,000 years ago. "
Good, then I am eager to hear your explanations on the 8 points.
Next you said
"Free will cannot exist if God is all knowing and all powerful. you merely have the illusion of free will. If god is all knowing and all powerful, then he knew every decision were you going to make before he created you correct?"
Yes but your false assumption lies in the fact that because He knows what we are going to do means we did not freely do it. He knows what we will do but the actions are still done freely. So unless you can show me a contradiction which you havent, I see no problem at all.
Part 3 coming
Devin Pellew
You said
"next, you say that people will not experience torture but torment. So are you saying that people in hell will not be in excruciating pain for eternity? that seems like torture to me.
I do not deny they will be in pain but the pain and torment is self inflicted. I do not take the language of Hell as to be literal because the language and hermenudicts really allow for it. Scripture is telling us what Hell is "Like" and is giving analogies. For example fire is used but we are also told it is outer darkness. Both cant be literal because they are contradictory, also Hell is compared to be like a water-less cloud, wandering star and a bottomless dump. The scriptures is telling us what Hell is like. It will be far worse then we can imagine and the pain is inflicted from within and self caused. They will also face God's wrath and not have His goodness. The terms used in scripture is torment, not torture and they just are not the same things.
As far as the last part dealing with "gay marriage" is another whole debate in and of itself. We just have to much on the table now and need to focus on just one area I think. I would like to discuss arguments for God's existence as this is where it all comes down to.
I am thankful for the dialog my friend and you are a very intelligent guy and enjoy the discussion. If nothing else I hope you see that Christianity is not some brain dead belief but see there are good reasons to believe it is true.
Quickly you said
" There is a BIG difference between having an idea and acting on it. If I have an idea about how to rob a bank it is different than if I actually do it. If you believe that being gay is wrong then that's your prerogative. However, when you take that idea and start limiting the rights of others, it crosses a line. You are intelligent enough to see the difference."
Homosexuality is legal in America and is tolerated. The behavior is not promoted though through marriage and should not be because of the terrible effects on society. So no one is limiting their rights, however to redefine marriage for everyone else is a whole other ball game then just practicing it.
Look forward to hearing from you!
No comments:
Post a Comment