Instigator / Pro
18
1702
rating
574
debates
67.86%
won
Topic
#1793
The only genuinely sane way to adhere to an Abrahamic religion is to deem the sanctity of scripture/writing as inferior to human capacity to interpret it.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 4 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...
fauxlaw
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
27
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Description
BY ACCEPTING THIS DEBATE YOU ACCEPT THE FOLLOWING:
We agree to have sources outside the document if we wish to increase our character limit efficiency.
The term 'sane' is to be loosely defined in favour of Pro. Meaning that the strict definition of 'not mentally ill' shouldn't be literally taken as something Pro needs to prove all of the resolution don't qualify as or vice versa. Beyond that, the definition is flexible enough and this is about sound judgement and rational thought.
Round 1
Introduction
Alright, I know you were all expecting a fine essay from me with quotes and all that. That will come in Round 2. Trust me, I know what I am doing. This debate depends entirely on how Con attacks Pro and forms their own case, Pro can try to be proactive but it will backfire.
I am going to start with a simple idea.
You can't believe in a trilogy and then say that 2 of them are lies.
Other than Judaism, which is still irrational in that it only holds its scripture to be holy when written in Hebrew and on a Torah scroll, the religions of Christianity and Islam take the scripture of Judaism as the first part of a 2-part or 3-part series respectively. When I tell you that the Old Testament if Christianity literally is the translated version of the Torah Scroll into a non-Hebrew language, you will think I am joking at first if you don't know enough. It would be like me walking up to a director, saying 'thanks for your movie' and then making a sequel claiming that the other movie is part of my own series. Do you see how problematic that is from a standpoint of then denying that the other religion is the valid one?
Islam takes it one step further. They add on a third part to the trilogy and then say that the first two aren't even valid scriptures, even though they accurately depicted what happened before.
==
The difference between being Pro on this debate and being anti-Abrahamic religions
I want to make it clear that I am not condemning all followers of Judaism, Christianity and Islam in this debate. I am solely focusing on the sanity of those who are so fundamentalist that they think that if human common sense and interpretation of texts comes in the way of the literal holy scripture's more blatant meaning then they'd rather be truer to that. There are lines in the Qur'an that literally say the following:
And never think of those who have been killed in the cause of Allah as dead. Rather, they are alive with their Lord, receiving provision, rejoicing in what Allah has bestowed upon them of His bounty, and they receive good tidings about those [to be martyred] after them who have not yet joined them - that there will be no fear concerning them, nor will they grieve.
SAHIH INTERNATIONAL 3:169-170
This is severely alarming. Encouragement to abuse one's wife, stoning and many other things are there in all three religions. If you are to seriously take the scripture as the ineffible word of an omnipotent, omniscient being that demands worship from you or eternal damnation, you are on your way to being flat out insane.
This is not a joke but this is also not a hateful piece. I am not writing this to incite hatred to a group of people, I am trying to explore the sane way to adhere to a religion that has text such as that in its holy scripture.
If we include the Talmud and Hadith as holy scriptures as well, we start to really see how horrific the world could be if more literally took their scripture as the correct way to implement their religion.
I define sanity as the following:
and 'sane' as the following:
If you refer to a sane person, action, or system, you mean one that you think is reasonable and sensible.
It is nigh impossible to truly adhere to the written scripture of these religions and not have many intra-religion contradictions, intra-Abrahamic-inter-religion contradictions and to furthermore not irrationally rule out all non-Abrahamic religions as worth your time. You see, the scriptures of all three religions state that blind faith is to be encouraged and that questioning God itself is toxic to your soul and wellbeing.
I look forward to seeing how Con builds a case or destroys my case. Round 2 will have a lot more content strategised to defend against Con's attacks.
First, I will argue that my opponent has not read the Torah, The Holy Bible, nor the Qur’an word for word, cover to cover. It is effortless at this juncture in our technical history to conceive a topic, and research an associated passage, holy writ to profane text [profane in the sense as described by the Oxford English Dictionary [hereafter, OED] as: “2. In a neutral sense. Not relating or devoted to what is sacred or biblical; unconsecrated, secular, lay; civil as distinguished from ecclesiastical; as profane history, profane literature, etc.”[1] However, I have read all three, and other holy writ, cover to cover. They are worth the read.
It is tempting to focus on the relevant passage, ignoring context. Nor is it revealing to ignore the culture behind the language. I digress a moment to comment on the last reference to explain what I mean by “culture behind the language.” I was an undergraduate student at BYU, Provo, UT, taking a course in Egyptian [hieroglyphs] Grammar. The professor, Dr. Hugh Nibley, in the Antiquities Department, and fluent in at least a dozen languages in which he lectured at will, in utter fluidity from one to another, assumed we poor students were hanging on every word. I felt fortunate that at least I had French mastered, and some Greek and Italian. Other than ancient Egyptian, and English, of course, he spoke Hebrew, Greek, German, French, Italian, Russian, Sanskrit, and Arabic. And more.
Nibley taught that all language translation was necessarily flawed as being merely dictionary-to-dictionary transcription while lacking any understanding of the culture behind the language to translate. He taught that it was culture that drove language, and not the reverse. Dictionaries do not teach the culture of the language. The OED approaches the lack by its exhaustive etymological investigation,[2]but even that is not enough. Therefore, his course taught us, first, an in-depth understanding of ancient Egyptian life, simple daily activities, thoughts on the cosmos, on farming techniques along the Nile, religion and gods, worship of the pharaoh, etc. Only then did we crack the alphabet, vocabulary, and grammar.[3]
That diversion prompted my effort to not depend entirely on a single, extracted passage of scripture in whatever volume I inquired, but to get a sense of surrounding text for, well, context. I will offer an example:
One of my favorite passages of the Holy Bible, in the New Testament is an admonishment to pursue wisdom. James 1: 5 “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.”[1]That, alone, was impressive, and I did not, then, peruse further. When I finally did, I recognized a pattern, beginning in verse 2, and extending through 6:
“2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;
3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.
4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.”[2]
That entire context is revealing: when we fall into temptation [or ignorance], maintain patience by the work of faith, letting patience have its perfect work. Then when we lack wisdom, ask God. We have just been through a process of personal purification and are worthy to receive knowledge and wisdom we lack. Nevertheless, that, too, must be acted on in faith, without doubt, to earn the knowledge that will come.
That said, the quote my opponent offered from the Qur’an, The Imrans, 3: 169-170, is just such a passage that, allegedly, described what he interpreted, but by what words I must challenge. "And never think of those who have been killed in the cause of Allah as dead. “Rather, they are alive with their Lord, receiving provision, rejoicing in what Allah has bestowed upon them of His bounty, and they receive good tidings about those [to be martyred] after them who have not yet joined them - that there will be no fear concerning them, nor will they grieve.”[3] My opponent concluded by that passage that “This is severely alarming. Encouragement of abuse to one’s wife, stoning, and many other things…”[4]
I do not read Arabic. My volume of the Qur’an is a slightly different passage of words, which are similar enough to understand that my opponent's quotation and my volume are saying the same thing. Close enough to know that in neither volume do I perceive “encouragement of abuse to one’s wife…”[1] etc. Do you? I will quote The Imrans, 3: 3 - 5, refuting a later claim by my opponent that “many intra-religion contradictions, intra-Abrahamic-inter-religion contradictions and to furthermore not irrationally rule out all non-Abrahamic religions as worth your time.” The above reference reads, “He [Allah] has revealed to you the Book with the Torah, confining the scriptures which preceded it; for He has already revealed the Torah and the Gospel for the guidance of, and the distinction of right and wrong.”[2]
It seems the claim of contradiction is refuted by my opponent’s own referenced passage, in context, of the Qur’an, let alone similar passages in both the Torah and the Gospels.
To ratify this point, let us observe a passage of the Gospel that is echoed by the reference to The Imrans, 3: 169-170. I quote from Matthew 5: 10 – 12:
“10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.”[3]
Curious, this passage does not speak to abusing women, either. So, from what fountain does that claim spring?
Finally, my opponent claims that “blind faith is to be encouraged and that questioning God itself is toxic to your soul and wellbeing.”[4]
It seems the extended passage from James 1: 5 refutes that claim all on its own:
“…let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.” To “upbraid” is “to give reproach, or reproof” according to the OED. However, the passage is upbraid not; that is, there is no reproach, or, one might say, even, it is not “toxic to your soul.”[5]
However, let us consult the following passage of The Imrans 3: 6 – 11, which my opponent ignored in his claim of toxicity:
“It is He who has revealed to you the Book.”[1]
There appears to be a lot of revelation going on, God to man, to claim that such communication is toxic to our souls. It appears that it is even consistent, not contradictory revelation, over three separate volumes. And, why not? Whether the god in question is Elohim,[2] not a name, but a title, and, in fact, according to John Mclaughlin, a reference to either a single god, or many, or Christ, not a name, but a title, signifying “Messiah,”[3] or Allah[4], not a name, but a title, signifying God. These several references to “God” are all titles.[5]
All footnote references are published in "Comments"
Round 2
Forfeited
My opponent forfeited round 1. So be it. I expected an argument that my round 1 did not address the opponent’s initial charge that the only sane adherence to Abrahamic religion is to limit the sanctity of the varied holy writ [“a trilogy” by claim] as inferior to human interpretation. This claim will be addressed now.
First, as it has already been used in the first Con argument, “transliterate” will be defined by the Oxford English Dictionary [hereafter, OED]: “transliterate transitive:To replace [the letters or characters of one alphabet] with those of another, representing as closely as possible the same sounds; to write [a word] in the letters or characters of another alphabet.”[1]
The claim of a debased sanctity, as opposed to human interpretation, is refuted by simple means. One must acknowledge that we have, today, a variety of “translations” of each volume [the Torah, the Bible – Old and New Testaments, and the Qur’an], however, we have no examples of original, historically contemporary texts of any volume. Therefore, we, today, being separated from any consideration of original texts, are left with transliterations, not direct translations. As such, having second, third… n-hand representations of texts, it would follow that interpretation is inferior to sanctity, not, as my opponent contends, the reverse.
It is further argued that culture drives language, not the reverse [my opponent did not argue this, but it must acknowledged as essential to the argument]. Language points to culture. Language is not merely its alphabet, syntax, and grammar, but is a reflection of the culture that creates it.[2]Without a prior knowledge of the culture, a language foreign to our own will not be fully understood until the culture is understood. Therefore, the translationof an ancient language, let alone contemporary, is only possible by first understanding the ancient culture. To do otherwise is transliteration,a dictionary-to-dictionary comparison. Dictionaries typically do a poor job of cultural education.
In fact, the same condition affects virtually any religion of antiquity extant today. Transliteration is not unique to Abrahamic religions. It will be generously acknowledged if any religion of antiquity has, in fact, original texts, and that we understand the ancient culture. However, it is easily demonstrated that no such original texts exist today, at least that have been found to date, with respect to Abrahamic religions.
Therefore, the sanctity of religious texts is superior to any human interpretation, particularly in the event that any human has a bias against any interpretive sanctity by which any religious text would encourage that human to aspire to reach.
First, as it has already been used in the first Con argument, “transliterate” will be defined by the Oxford English Dictionary [hereafter, OED]: “transliterate transitive:To replace [the letters or characters of one alphabet] with those of another, representing as closely as possible the same sounds; to write [a word] in the letters or characters of another alphabet.”[1]
The claim of a debased sanctity, as opposed to human interpretation, is refuted by simple means. One must acknowledge that we have, today, a variety of “translations” of each volume [the Torah, the Bible – Old and New Testaments, and the Qur’an], however, we have no examples of original, historically contemporary texts of any volume. Therefore, we, today, being separated from any consideration of original texts, are left with transliterations, not direct translations. As such, having second, third… n-hand representations of texts, it would follow that interpretation is inferior to sanctity, not, as my opponent contends, the reverse.
It is further argued that culture drives language, not the reverse [my opponent did not argue this, but it must acknowledged as essential to the argument]. Language points to culture. Language is not merely its alphabet, syntax, and grammar, but is a reflection of the culture that creates it.[2]Without a prior knowledge of the culture, a language foreign to our own will not be fully understood until the culture is understood. Therefore, the translationof an ancient language, let alone contemporary, is only possible by first understanding the ancient culture. To do otherwise is transliteration,a dictionary-to-dictionary comparison. Dictionaries typically do a poor job of cultural education.
In fact, the same condition affects virtually any religion of antiquity extant today. Transliteration is not unique to Abrahamic religions. It will be generously acknowledged if any religion of antiquity has, in fact, original texts, and that we understand the ancient culture. However, it is easily demonstrated that no such original texts exist today, at least that have been found to date, with respect to Abrahamic religions.
Therefore, the sanctity of religious texts is superior to any human interpretation, particularly in the event that any human has a bias against any interpretive sanctity by which any religious text would encourage that human to aspire to reach.
Round 3
I do not wish to engage in this debate anymore, it is not important to point out the flaws of other scripture if we truly adhere to the true one.
I am something in between a Pagan and a Taoist and I adore being this way, I am not concerned with 'fighting', that is what Abrahamic religions encourage too much of actually.
Let them preach what they want, if you can't with your own interpretation question the horrific and stupid parts, that's on you. Your insanity is your burden, not just others'. That's all I will say. I understand that I am likely to lose the debate. I encourage all to read here:
if you care about my spiritual journey and where this debate's research led me towards that then made me not want to continue this debate.
The Pro opponent has declined to participate further in this debate. The moderator has advised to “extend” each of the future rounds, including this. I choose, rather, to place a final argument now, and will extend the last, 4th round.
In the round 3 forfeiture, Pro said he is “not concerned with ‘fighting,’ and that is what Abrahamic religions encourage too much of actually.”
In round 1, Con charged that Pro has not read the Torah, the Holy Bible, nor the Qur’an “word-for-word, cover-to-cover.” It is, therefore, not surprising that Pro would suggest “fighting” is the order of the day among the practitioners of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The error in Pro’s claim is in replacing the Hoy Writ of these religions with the evidence of some, and perhaps, in history if not currently, many to most practitioners.
I contend that the reverse is the true observation: that the Word is sanctified, and that it is the action of practitioners that fails to interpret correctly what is written.
I argue, for example, using a concept that is more fully developed, but certainly not unique to the Holy Bible. All three scriptures of the Abrahamic religions have content of the following nature. Let it be said the specific comparison by citation of point by point in all three tomes would cause excessive citation within this argument; I will offer one example from each to suffice. Common sense, otherwise, should rule; these are so ingrained in our relative, shared cultures to make the specific citations unnecessary.
In Matthew 5 of the New Testament of the Holy Bible, we find the “Sermon on the Mount,” commonly called “The Beatitudes;” being “poor in spirit,” “mourn,” “meek,” “hunger and thirst after righteousness,” etc. My argument is that the attitudes taught in this singular sermon are so effective, regardless of their ancient revelation, so pertinent to our times, though two thousand years ancient, that adherence to each, were that actually attempted and practiced by all, would solve every single social ill we suffer today. Every one of them.
I’ll highlight one, and compare it to the other two scriptures of Abrahamic religion to demonstrate that all three embrace this sermon:
Christianity
“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.”[1]
Islam
It should be noted, first, that the word, Islam is derived from Arabic “sal’m,”or, in English, “peace.”[2]
Further, The Qur’an, Imrans: 134: “Those who give alms in prosperity and in adversity, who curb their anger and forgive their fellow men [God loves the charitable]; who, if they commit evil or wrong their souls, remember God and seek forgiveness for their sins [for who but God can forgive sin?] and do not knowingly persist in their misdeeds.”[3]
Judaism
Note, first, the Hebrew word, shalom, is “peace.”[4]Compare the Arabic, “sal’m.”
The Torah works peace: “Speak unto Aaron and unto his sons, saying: On this wise shall ye bless the children of Israel; ye shall say unto them:
The Lord bless thee, and keep thee;
The Lord make His face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee;
The Lord lift up His countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.”[5]
Further: Old Testament, “The Prophets”
“And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness, quietness and assurance for ever.”[6]
Conclusion
Contrary to Pro’s argument against the sound advice given in all three scriptures of Abrahamic religions, relative to just this example of peacemaking, let alone the other axioms of the Sermon on the Mount, it is scripture that defines the standard. By Pro’s mistaken transference of the written word for demonstrated action, Pro argued that it was the Word that is sanctimonious and inferior to human capacity to interpret it, and not the opposite. It is demonstrated that the reverse is true: Scripture is sanctified, and it is the duty of human interpretation to align to it.
Round 4
There is no error whatsoever. The only two religions to genuinely pillage and conquer and make themselves unbelievably dominant religions over the rest are Christianity and Islam. This is because they took many teachings in the writings literally and forgot to properly interpret and put into context the concept of 'spreading religion' not by force but by love.
It is not my job to teach the world the corruption of the Abrahamic religions and while Judaism has done less in terms of conquering and pillaging, it isn't a mystery that Israel is known for its corruption. I'd link a source but that would give my opponent the potential to not win the source voting point.
I concede this debate out of not wanting the stress and unhealthy conflict that arises when thinking your religion needs to thwart all others, which Abrahamic religions love to think as it's taught in their scriptures. I have actually read all three scriptures that Con says I haven't, it's Con who is baselessly claiming to have read them and appealing to authority as if his claim he read more asserts what he says as more likely to be true.
I know exactly how horrific the texts are but I don't want to risk typing anything resembling hate speech so I will stop here.
Pro argues that “The only two religions to genuinely pillage and conquer and make themselves unbelievably dominant religions over the rest are Christianity and Islam.” Ignored in the claim is Judaism’s Torah, as represented by Deuteronomy 20: 16-18, “But the cities of these people [Canaanites, etc.] which the Lord they God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them…”
However, this is an aside argument, not germane to the debate question of which element, a religion’s holy writ, or the adherents’ capacity of interpretation of it is the more sanctified.
The opponent has the burden of proof to demonstrate the subject of the debate. I contend that he has failed in his purpose. Pro has even conceded the debate:
“I concede this debate out of not wanting the stress and unhealthy conflict that arises when thinking your religion needs to thwart all others.” Considering the shared themes all three Abrahamic religions demonstrate, it is by mere interpretation of selected verses, taken out of context, and completely misinterpreted by not investigating context, that Pro believes his claims. In rebuttal, I claim three points:
1. Pro’s argument in round 1 highlighted verses in the Qur’an, claiming that they were “severely alarming” by advocating mistreatment of women. A read of the passage quoted had naught to do with this subject, or abuse of any kind.
2. Pro’s argument followed by claiming “many intra-religion contradictions, intra-Abrahamic-inter-religion contradictions and to furthermore not irrationally rule out all non-Abrahamic religions as worth your time.” I argued in reply that all three religions specify in their separate holy writs shared themes, elevating those writings above the turmoil to sanctify their wisdom above that of men’s interpretations.
3. Pro argued that “blind faith” is encouraged, and that questioning God is toxic. On the contrary, I quoted from the Qur’an, the Bible, and the Torah, on the agreeable principle that God invites questions, and will reply by revelation, with eager compliance, contesting the claimed toxicity.
I refer you to the referenced sources offered n each of the first three rounds in support of the three arguments discussed above. I contend that this debate is not lost by forfeit, but won by sound and documented reasoning.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nevets // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 to Pro, 1 to Con.
>Reason for Decision:
reasons in comment
>Reason for Mod Action: Per the Voting Policy:
"Similarly, a conceded debate is any debate in which on side clearly concedes the debate to their opponent. These debates are considered conceded debates and are not moderated 𝐮𝐧𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐚 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐬." I appreciate the lengthy analysis, and some points were raised, but the guidelines were clear.
************************************************************************
I don't understand how you can give the win to someone who said "I concede"
Pro was doing pretty good right up until about a third of the way through his first round. He lost the plot pretty quickly after that.
And i will end by concluding "why" i consider the bible an unreliable source.
By fauxlaws own admission. We do not have the original scriptures.
Yet he still uses it to support his undertsandings
"Pro argues that “The only two religions to genuinely pillage and conquer and make themselves unbelievably dominant religions over the rest are Christianity and Islam.” Ignored in the claim is Judaism’s Torah, as represented by Deuteronomy 20: 16-18, “But the cities of these people [Canaanites, etc.] which the Lord they God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them…”
However, this is an aside argument, not germane to the debate question of which element, a religion’s holy writ, or the adherents’ capacity of interpretation of it is the more sanctified.
The opponent has the burden of proof to demonstrate the subject of the debate. I contend that he has failed in his purpose. Pro has even conceded the debate:
“I concede this debate out of not wanting the stress and unhealthy conflict that arises when thinking your religion needs to thwart all others.” Considering the shared themes all three Abrahamic religions demonstrate, it is by mere interpretation of selected verses, taken out of context, and completely misinterpreted by not investigating context, that Pro believes his claims. In rebuttal, I claim three points:
1. Pro’s argument in round 1 highlighted verses in the Qur’an, claiming that they were “severely alarming” by advocating mistreatment of women. A read of the passage quoted had naught to do with this subject, or abuse of any kind.
2. Pro’s argument followed by claiming “many intra-religion contradictions, intra-Abrahamic-inter-religion contradictions and to furthermore not irrationally rule out all non-Abrahamic religions as worth your time.” I argued in reply that all three religions specify in their separate holy writs shared themes, elevating those writings above the turmoil to sanctify their wisdom above that of men’s interpretations.
3. Pro argued that “blind faith” is encouraged, and that questioning God is toxic. On the contrary, I quoted from the Qur’an, the Bible, and the Torah, on the agreeable principle that God invites questions, and will reply by revelation, with eager compliance, contesting the claimed toxicity.
I refer you to the referenced sources offered n each of the first three rounds in support of the three arguments discussed above. I contend that this debate is not lost by forfeit, but won by sound and documented reasoning.
I actually award fauxtraut an argument point for his comments about Judaism, and it "was" the Hebrews that wrote the bible. And i will also reduce a mark for once using sources correctly. And that is to prove valid points. and defeat claims.
Argument 0-11
source 0-31
conduct 0-2
S&G 2-0
Now i cannot remember who it was i voted for last time. But i have developed a new strategy of voting anyway. But if it was fauxlaw i voted for last-time, i did so because i was under the impression, that the opponent had surrendered. Though i cannot remember. I'v had some sleeps by then.
But if anyone wants to claim they put more effort than me, in to deciding who has the best argument, go ahead.
There is no error whatsoever. The only two religions to genuinely pillage and conquer and make themselves unbelievably dominant religions over the rest are Christianity and Islam. This is because they took many teachings in the writings literally and forgot to properly interpret and put into context the concept of 'spreading religion' not by force but by love.
"It is not my job to teach the world the corruption of the Abrahamic religions and while Judaism has done less in terms of conquering and pillaging, it isn't a mystery that Israel is known for its corruption. I'd link a source but that would give my opponent the potential to not win the source voting point.
I concede this debate out of not wanting the stress and unhealthy conflict that arises when thinking your religion needs to thwart all others, which Abrahamic religions love to think as it's taught in their scriptures. I have actually read all three scriptures that Con says I haven't, it's Con who is baselessly claiming to have read them and appealing to authority as if his claim he read more asserts what he says as more likely to be true.
I know exactly how horrific the texts are but I don't want to risk typing anything resembling hate speech so I will stop here."
Here, Rat Skep puts a "huge" smile on my face. Do you know why? Because debaters on here had me doubting i had the ability to judge things and inteprpret things. But at the beginning of writing beneath, i had not read round 5.
And guess what...He said "everything" i attributed to him believing.
Argument 12-0
source 26-0
conduct 2-0
S&G 0-2
"
Conclusion
Contrary to Pro’s argument against the sound advice given in all three scriptures of Abrahamic religions, relative to just this example of peacemaking, let alone the other axioms of the Sermon on the Mount, it is scripture that defines the standard. By Pro’s mistaken transference of the written word for demonstrated action, Pro argued that it was the Word that is sanctimonious and inferior to human capacity to interpret it, and not the opposite. It is demonstrated that the reverse is true: Scripture is sanctified, and it is the duty of human interpretation to align to it."
Let me reread this " By Pro’s mistaken transference of the written word for demonstrated action, Pro argued that it was the Word that is sanctimonious and inferior to human capacity to interpret it, and not the opposite. It is demonstrated that the reverse is true: Scripture is sanctified, and it is the duty of human interpretation to align to it."
Pro argued this, did he? "and not the opposite. It is demonstrated that the reverse is true:" woah
"Scripture is sanctified, and it is the duty of human interpretation to align to it."
what does this mean? It sounds incomprehensible
argument 0-11
source 0-26
conduct 0-2
S&G 2-0
[1]Holy Bible, Matthew 5: 9
[2]https://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/whats-the-real-meaning-of-islam/
[3]Qur’an, Imrams 135 - 140
[4]https://www.etymonline.com/word/shalom
[5]Torah, Numbers 6: 23 - 26
[6]Holy Bible, Isaiah 32: 17
argument 0-11
sources 0-32
conduct 0-2
S&G 2-0
end of round 4
fauxlaw - the sentence beneath was just conjecture. The next bit of relevance was
"In Matthew 5 of the New Testament of the Holy Bible, we find the “Sermon on the Mount,” commonly called “The Beatitudes;” being “poor in spirit,” “mourn,” “meek,” “hunger and thirst after righteousness,” etc. My argument is that the attitudes taught in this singular sermon are so effective, regardless of their ancient revelation, so pertinent to our times, though two thousand years ancient, that adherence to each, were that actually attempted and practiced by all, would solve every single social ill we suffer today. Every one of them."
I’ll highlight one, and compare it to the other two scriptures of Abrahamic religion to demonstrate that all three embrace this sermon: "
No-one has validated the bible as a reliable source. Another source violation
argument 0-9
Sourcing 0-20
Conduct -0-2
S&G 2-0
"Christianity
“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.”[1]
Islam
It should be noted, first, that the word, Islam is derived from Arabic “sal’m,”or, in English, “peace.”[2]
Further, The Qur’an, Imrans: 134: “Those who give alms in prosperity and in adversity, who curb their anger and forgive their fellow men [God loves the charitable]; who, if they commit evil or wrong their souls, remember God and seek forgiveness for their sins [for who but God can forgive sin?] and do not knowingly persist in their misdeeds.”[3]
Judaism
Note, first, the Hebrew word, shalom, is “peace.”[4]Compare the Arabic, “sal’m.”
The Torah works peace: “Speak unto Aaron and unto his sons, saying: On this wise shall ye bless the children of Israel; ye shall say unto them:
The Lord bless thee, and keep thee;
The Lord make His face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee;
The Lord lift up His countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.”[5]
Further: Old Testament, “The Prophets”
“And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness, quietness and assurance for ever.”[6]"
That was all meaningless. fauxlaw even agrees that there is no way of validating what the scriptures used to say. Yet he still uses them when it comes to forming hiis own arguments
argument 0-10
Sourcing 0-26
Conduct -0-2
S&G 2-0
"The Pro opponent has declined to participate further in this debate. The moderator has advised to “extend” each of the future rounds, including this. I choose, rather, to place a final argument now, and will extend the last, 4th round.
In the round 3 forfeiture, Pro said he is “not concerned with ‘fighting,’ and that is what Abrahamic religions encourage too much of actually.”
In round 1, Con charged that Pro has not read the Torah, the Holy Bible, nor the Qur’an “word-for-word, cover-to-cover.” It is, therefore, not surprising that Pro would suggest “fighting” is the order of the day among the practitioners of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The error in Pro’s claim is in replacing the Hoy Writ of these religions with the evidence of some, and perhaps, in history if not currently, many to most practitioners."
If Rat skep had forfeited. Then it would be unfair for me to award anymore
However i have to go back and reread. I dont believe Rat skep did indeed offer a surrender. This is a conduct violation, trying to con me
Argument 0-8
Sourcing 0-19
Conduct -0-2
S&G 2-0
"I contend that the reverse is the true observation: that the Word is sanctified, and that it is the action of practitioners that fails to interpret correctly what is written."
I believe in fact, that it is the believers are simply lying about having the ability to correctly "interpret" what is written. And i believe this is another argument point to Rat Skep, because his title actually suggests that he is aware that this is what believers try to do
"The only genuinely sane way to adhere to an Abrahamic religion is to deem the sanctity of scripture/writing as inferior to human capacity to interpret it."
argument 0-9
Sourcing 0-19
Conduct -0-2
S&G 2-0
"I do not wish to engage in this debate anymore, it is not important to point out the flaws of other scripture if we truly adhere to the true one.
I am something in between a Pagan and a Taoist and I adore being this way, I am not concerned with 'fighting', that is what Abrahamic religions encourage too much of actually.
Let them preach what they want, if you can't with your own interpretation question the horrific and stupid parts, that's on you. Your insanity is your burden, not just others'. That's all I will say. I understand that I am likely to lose the debate. I encourage all to read here:
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3949/i-have-converted-to-taoism-and-i-quit-this-website?page=1&post_number=25
if you care about my spiritual journey and where this debate's research led me towards that then made me not want to continue this debate."
I read from this Rat Skep agrees that what the texts used to say, is not important. it is what they say today that is important.
But one will never be able to convince someone that believes, of this.
argument 9-0
sourcing 21-0
conduct 1-0
S&G 0-2
"It is further argued that culture drives language, not the reverse [my opponent did not argue this, but it must acknowledged as essential to the argument]. Language points to culture."
There is a hell of a lot he did not argue. That means nothing..Argument fallacy equals bad argument equals
argument 0-8
"Language is not merely its alphabet, syntax, and grammar, but is a reflection of the culture that creates it.[2]
source violation
sourcing 0-21
"Without a prior knowledge of the culture, a language foreign to our own will not be fully understood until the culture is understood. Therefore, the translationof an ancient language, let alone contemporary, is only possible by first understanding the ancient culture. To do otherwise is transliteration,a dictionary-to-dictionary comparison. Dictionaries typically do a poor job of cultural education."
This is meaningless. What the scriptures said yesterday, in no way invalidates what they say today.
The rest is conjecture "Therefore, the sanctity of religious texts is superior to any human interpretation," but keep an eye on this
argument 0-8
sourcing 0-21
conduct 0-1
S&G 2-0
Extra source violation regards to this link
"[1]https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/204859?redirectedFrom=transliterate#eid"
It takes you to a page where your computer is likely to freeze, and there is nothing there that supports what he said
argument 0-8
sourcing 0-22
conduct 0-1
S&G 2-0
He produced a link for claim 2 aswell, that actually did say a little what he said.
So willl remove 2 source violations. Though would be helpful if links were displayed above the quote
argument 0-8
sourcing 0-20
conduct 0-1
S&G 2-0
End of round 2
"First, as it has already been used in the first Con argument, “transliterate” will be defined by the Oxford English Dictionary [hereafter, OED]: “transliterate transitive:To replace [the letters or characters of one alphabet] with those of another, representing as closely as possible the same sounds; to write [a word] in the letters or characters of another alphabet.”[1]"
Incomprehensible definitioning, plus two source violations
Argument 0-6
Sourcing 0-20
Conduct 0-1
Spelling and Grammar.... hey, there was some big words in that description.
2-0
"The claim of a debased sanctity, as opposed to human interpretation, is refuted by simple means. One must acknowledge that we have, today, a variety of “translations” of each volume [the Torah, the Bible – Old and New Testaments, and the Qur’an], however, we have no examples of original, historically contemporary texts of any volume. Therefore, we, today, being separated from any consideration of original texts, are left with transliterations, not direct translations. As such, having second, third… n-hand representations of texts, it would follow that interpretation is inferior to sanctity, not, as my opponent contends, the reverse."
I read from this that fauxlaw is admitting he cannot prove that Rat Skep is wrong about what is written in the bible, because we do not have the original scriptures, so we only have fauxlaws word for it..However i am not sure Rat Skep is bothered about what the original scriptures says. He is talking about the scriptures of today, and what they say today
Argument 0-7
Sourcing 0-20
Conduct 0-1
s&g 2-0
Rat Skep round 2 forfeited.
Conduct now only 1-0
Argument now only 6-0
Sources now only 18-0
Spelling and grammar 0-1
No spelling and grammar is worse than no spelling and grammar.
Ok, now on to his opponent. his opponent might be able to claw some credit back, given there was a lack of an argument
fauxlaw has plenty time to appeal.
I still have 4 rounds to go.
I will no longer vote without first giving debaters the opportunity to object
fauxlaw However, let us consult the following passage of The Imrans 3: 6 – 11, which my opponent ignored in his claim of toxicity:
Rat Skep also ignored donald trump getting voted in to preseidency. Him not mentioning something is not proof he is wrong. Conduct violation
Also there has been no confirmation that Imrans 3 6 - 11 is a valid source
Conduct 0-2
source 0-16
argument 0-7
"“Those that deny Allah’s revelations shall be sternly punished; God is mighty and capable of revenge. Nothing on earth or in heaven is hidden from Allah. It is He who shapes your bodies in your mothers’ wombs as He pleases. There is no god but Him, the Mighty, the Wise One.
“It is He who has revealed to you the Book.”[1]"
fauxlaw proves opponents claims entirely. This what the bible says, yes. So argument 0-8. One source violation
Argument 0-8
sourcing 0-18
Conduct 0-2
"There appears to be a lot of revelation going on, God to man, to claim that such communication is toxic to our souls. It appears that it is even consistent, not contradictory revelation, over three separate volumes. And, why not? Whether the god in question is Elohim,[2] not a name, but a title, and, in fact, according to John Mclaughlin, a reference to either a single god, or many, or Christ, not a name, but a title, signifying “Messiah,”[3] or Allah[4], not a name, but a title, signifying God. These several references to “God” are all titles.[5]"
This is completely meaningless. uncomprehensible. 4 source violations. + bad uncomprehensible argument = bad argument 0-9
Argument 0-9
source 0-19
conduct 0-2
End of round 1 analysis
fauxlaw rd 1 continued
"It seems the claim of contradiction is refuted by my opponent’s own referenced passage, in context, of the Qur’an, let alone similar passages in both the Torah and the Gospels. To ratify this point, let us observe a passage of the Gospel that is echoed by the reference to The Imrans, 3: 169-170. I quote from Matthew 5: 10 – 12:
“10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.”[3]
fauxlaw now claims Rat Skep refuted himself. But where?
For proof of this, he provides this “10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.”[3]
what does this mean? or prove? also two more source violation
Sourcing 0-13 + passages from bible that do not appear to even mean anything 0-14
argument 0-5
conduct 0-1
Allegations of Rat Skep refuting himself must result in another argument point against.
"Curious, this passage does not speak to abusing women, either. So, from what fountain does that claim spring?
Finally, my opponent claims that “blind faith is to be encouraged and that questioning God itself is toxic to your soul and wellbeing.”[4]
Well, Rat Skep did not say the OT was "all" about references to abusing women. One more source violation and 0-6 argument
Argument 0-6
source 0-15
conduct 0-1
"It seems the extended passage from James 1: 5 refutes that claim all on its own:
“…let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.” To “upbraid” is “to give reproach, or reproof” according to the OED. However, the passage is upbraid not; that is, there is no reproach, or, one might say, even, it is not “toxic to your soul.”[5]"
What? sorry? how does that refute anything? and when was it agreed James 1:5 is a reliable source? two more source violations. 0-7 argument
conduct 0-1
source 0-16
argument 0-7
tbc
"That entire context is revealing: when we fall into temptation [or ignorance], maintain patience by the work of faith, letting patience have its perfect work. Then when we lack wisdom, ask God. We have just been through a process of personal purification and are worthy to receive knowledge and wisdom we lack. Nevertheless, that, too, must be acted on in faith, without doubt, to earn the knowledge that will come."
This is a great interpretation, however fauxlaw is failing to interpretate the evils of the bible Rat Skep conjured. If this continue. then it is 0-4 argument
0-3 argument
0-9 sources
0-1 conduct
"That said, the quote my opponent offered from the Qur’an, The Imrans, 3: 169-170, is just such a passage that, allegedly, described what he interpreted, but by what words I must challenge. "And never think of those who have been killed in the cause of Allah as dead. “Rather, they are alive with their Lord, receiving provision, rejoicing in what Allah has bestowed upon them of His bounty, and they receive good tidings about those [to be martyred] after them who have not yet joined them - that there will be no fear concerning them, nor will they grieve.”[3] My opponent concluded by that passage that “This is severely alarming. Encouragement of abuse to one’s wife, stoning, and many other things…”[4]"
Here fauxlaw makes two source violations in my estimation. Have already explaained why i consider them violations
He interprets the bible, trying to rebute Rat Skep, and what is in the writing is horrific, almost 0-4 argument
Source 0-11
Argument still 0-3
Conduct 0-1
"I do not read Arabic. My volume of the Qur’an is a slightly different passage of words, which are similar enough to understand that my opponent's quotation and my volume are saying the same thing. Close enough to know that in neither volume do I perceive “encouragement of abuse to one’s wife…”[1] etc. Do you? I will quote The Imrans, 3: 3 - 5, refuting a later claim by my opponent that “many intra-religion contradictions, intra-Abrahamic-inter-religion contradictions and to furthermore not irrationally rule out all non-Abrahamic religions as worth your time.” The above reference reads, “He [Allah] has revealed to you the Book with the Torah, confining the scriptures which preceded it; for He has already revealed the Torah and the Gospel for the guidance of, and the distinction of right and wrong.”[2]
Here my opponent admits he has not read the quran. I may or may not see that as contradicting earlier claims about himself. But will let him off. He appears to now be of the opinion he has successfuly rebuffed Rat Skep and shown how he was mistaken about the quran encouraging stoning women.But i do not see how. He says it. yes. but what he says to does support the claim he has offered a logical and coherent explanation. It is just a baselss claim.
sources - 0-11
argument 0-4
conduct 0-1
fauxlaw R1
"First, I will argue that my opponent has not read the Torah, The Holy Bible, nor the Qur’an word for word, cover to cover. It is effortless at this juncture in our technical history to conceive a topic, and research an associated passage, holy writ to profane text [profane in the sense as described by the Oxford English Dictionary [hereafter, OED] as: “2. In a neutral sense. Not relating or devoted to what is sacred or biblical; unconsecrated, secular, lay; civil as distinguished from ecclesiastical; as profane history, profane literature, etc.”[1] However, I have read all three, and other holy writ, cover to cover. They are worth the read."
I am going to start with proposing awarding fauxlaw with a conduct violation.
He opened his argument by arguing his opponent has not read the Torah, The holy bible, or quran word for word cover to cover.
I claim this is a conduct violation, because nowhere in what opponent said, did he suggest anything about himself. There was also a claim made by fauxlaw himself. Obviously he claims to have read all this word for word, cover to cover. So i am also going to suggest a source violation. As we are just supposed to take his word for this? no source given. And it does not just fall under conjecture, like opponents conjecture did, as he is making a huge claim that would influence what people think of him, which requires validation and citation
0-1 conduct
0-4 sources
For his source for "profane" i award no points for source. His link requires copying and pasting in to google, and his (1) does not work. whereas his opponent produced the link in a manner it could simply be clicked on.
"It is tempting to focus on the relevant passage, ignoring context. Nor is it revealing to ignore the culture behind the language. I digress a moment to comment on the last reference to explain what I mean by “culture behind the language.” I was an undergraduate student at BYU, Provo, UT, taking a course in Egyptian [hieroglyphs] Grammar. The professor, Dr. Hugh Nibley, in the Antiquities Department, and fluent in at least a dozen languages in which he lectured at will, in utter fluidity from one to another, assumed we poor students were hanging on every word. I felt fortunate that at least I had French mastered, and some Greek and Italian. Other than ancient Egyptian, and English, of course, he spoke Hebrew, Greek, German, French, Italian, Russian, Sanskrit, and Arabic. And more.
Ok so from above we learn a lot about fauxlaw, but fauxlaw is not the subject. Also nothing to source the claims about himself he is making. I am not saying he is a charlatan. But is foolish to just assume anything without citation.
0-1 conduct
0-5 sources
Still 2-0 Rat Skep argument
"Nibley taught that all language translation was necessarily flawed as being merely dictionary-to-dictionary transcription while lacking any understanding of the culture behind the language to translate. He taught that it was culture that drove language, and not the reverse. Dictionaries do not teach the culture of the language. The OED approaches the lack by its exhaustive etymological investigation,[2]but even that is not enough. Therefore, his course taught us, first, an in-depth understanding of ancient Egyptian life, simple daily activities, thoughts on the cosmos, on farming techniques along the Nile, religion and gods, worship of the pharaoh, etc. Only then did we crack the alphabet, vocabulary, and grammar.[3]
A lot about Nibley. Nothing that i see contradicts Rat Skep, as yet, and again "source" (2) does not even work when clicked on. And what is he sourcing exactly? why not provide the quote? As far as i can see, those are his own words. He is sourcing his own words? Due to it being 2020, and the ability for a debater to provide a quote, and source the link above the quote, this has to constitute a black mark. Same with (3)
My opponent then sources the holy bible that my opponent has already shown believes to be inaccurate. Or believes to be inaccurate. And fauxlaw has not proven that Rat Skeps opinion is wrong. And again, that "source", [1] Without quote, or link, it is meaningless.
conduct 0-1
Sourcing 0-9
argument 0-3
"“2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;
3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.
4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.”[2]
conduct 0-1
sourcing 0-11
argument 0-3
Ok, my opponents post is so long, i will post this, and continue on his round 1 rebuttal
Only one way to get around this problem of votes being reported, is to show properly how one comes to the conslusion they do, and allow users to sub-debate the votes.
R1 Rational Skeptics 1st claim of relevance
"This is severely alarming. Encouragement to abuse one's wife, stoning and many other things are there in all three religions. If you are to seriously take the scripture as the ineffible word of an omnipotent, omniscient being that demands worship from you or eternal damnation, you are on your way to being flat out insane."
Regarding this
"And never think of those who have been killed in the cause of Allah as dead. Rather, they are alive with their Lord, receiving provision, rejoicing in what Allah has bestowed upon them of His bounty, and they receive good tidings about those [to be martyred] after them who have not yet joined them - that there will be no fear concerning them, nor will they grieve."
And i agree. 1-0 Rational Skeptic, argument
And his source https://quran.com/3/169-170
And his source does say this, word for word. 1-0 rational skeptic sources.
and 'sane' as the following:
If you refer to a sane person, action, or system, you mean one that you think is reasonable and sensible.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/sane
I agree - 2-0 rational skeptic, for argument
And source said that word for word. 2-0 Rational skeptic, for sourcing
The rest was conjecture.
So round 1 for rational skeptic ended with 2 hits for argument and 2 hits for sourcing.
Now i will way this up with fauxlaws argument in next post.
Thanks for your votes
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nevets // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 to Pro, 2 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Convincing argument - This is a hard one. Con appears to be a highly skilled multi-linguist scholar and researcher, and he certainly done a better job of arguing his case than Pro. However in my pre-conceived opinion, it is the wrong case.. Pro appears to believe that the bible is mostly fiction. He does a bad job presenting this. However Con does a great job in trying to convince everyone why one should donate so much time to defending a 4000 year old semi-fictional book, therefore i "may" present Con points for other factors below, but not for argument.
Sources - Con provided more sources. However providing sources from religious organisations, to prove a religious opinion, is likely going to result in the opinion being biased, and non neutral example below. but i left it at a tie, as Pro did not take the time to provide any meaningful sources at-all
https://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/whats-the-real-meaning-of-islam/
Spelling and Grammer - Without a doubt, that is Con
Better conduct - Again, definitely Con.. Pro forfeiteded a round and appeared to get a tad irate with Con
>Reason for Mod Action: Per the Voting Policy:
"Similarly, a conceded debate is any debate in which on side clearly concedes the debate to their opponent. These debates are considered conceded debates and are not moderated 𝐮𝐧𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐚 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐬."
************************************************************************
Thanks for your vote
ragnar observes
Glad you're amused, Doctor. I don't think Ragnar was. Not a dig, Sir Ragnar, just an observation.
LOL
Sue me. I took him at his word: "The problem isn’t that, in fact I had ‘quit’ the website if you analyse [sic] my activity before that statement that I was quitting."
I'm 18 days old on this site. Don't know the proclivities of anyone, yet, though I do recognize premature efactulation when I see it.
he dint quit, its something he likes to do
It's completely your choice what you post.
Sorry, didn't read your message until after I posted my round 2.
Your opponent has quit the site, so "Extend" in each of your rounds should do it unless he comes back.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3949/i-have-converted-to-taoism-and-i-quit-this-website
I noticed that your arguments are full of logical fallacies, including strawmen, circular reasoning, and the Texas sharpshooter. Would you care to understand that the burden of proof actually falls upon the atheist, considering that there is ZERO proof that God doesn't exist. No matter how much you try, it is almost impossible to prove a negative. Please provide to me evidence that atheism is accurate and correct.
Footnotes to Round 1 arguments:
1. https://www.oed.com
2. https://www.oed.com
3. Gardner, Sir Alan, Egyptian Grammar, Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs, 3rd Edition, revised, Oxford University Press, London, 1949
4. The Holy Bible, New Testament, James 1: 5 Note: all use of the Bible herein uses the KJV.
5. The Holy Bible, New Testament, James 1: 2 - 6
6. Qur’an, The Imans 3: 169 – 170 Note: all uses of the Qur’an, except reference to the opponent’s reference, is The Koran, translated by N.J. Dawood,
5th edition, Penguin Books, London, 1993
7. RationalMadman, “The only genuinely sane way to adhere to Abrahamic religion…” Argument round 1
8. RationalMadman, “The only genuinely sane way to adhere to Abrahamic religion…” Argument round 1
9. Qur’an, The Imrans, 3: 3 - 5
10. Holy Bible, New Testament, Matthew 5: 10 – 12
11 RationalMadman, “The only genuinely sane way to adhere to Abrahamic religion” Argument round 1
12 RationalMadman, “The only genuinely sane way to adhere to Abrahamic religion” Argument round 1
13 Qur’an, The Imrans, 3: 6 - 11
14 McLaughlin, John L. (2000). "Elohim". In Freedman, David Noel; Myer, Allen C. (eds.). Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible
15 OED: OE Homily (Corpus Cambr. 41) in K. G. Schaefer Five Old Eng. Homilies (Ph.D. diss., Columbia Univ.) (1972) 61 Ac hwæt wite ge þissum
hælende se is genemned Crist?
16 OED: 1. The name of God among Muslims and Arabic people in general.
17 https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-11-no-1-2010/name-titles-god-old-testament
ok pagan
Amazing how many are willing to engage a one-on-none conversation of the subject by commentary rather than accept the debate challenge. For what? Quibbling about definition? Sorry, not in this to quibble. To the debate, then!
Would be fun to debate.
But:
"Only genuinely sane" is, not insane.
"Sanctity" has ambiguous definition and in the context of the proposition sanctity could be equally applied to the human capacity to interpret. Or in fact more so.
"Capacity" is obviously variable, whereas sanctity is far less so, if at all.
The resultant juxtaposition of ideas is confusing.
it will come in the debate
What do you mean by sane here? Rational?
The definition of sane is part of the debate but can't solely mean to not be mentally ill in an official sense.
Your conditional (sane) is undefined in spite of your effort to define but morality don't enter into it.
It is hilarious that you portray what I do as immoral. You got your wins by semantic and BoP abuse entirely, don't even fucking try to sit on a high horse.
THBT: There is only one sane way to interpret X but not sane in the literal sense, or sane as in the absence of mental illness... it's a loose kind of sane that I may or may not get around to describing.