Total topics: 20
Without divine authority, you cannot have objective morality.
I'm not convinced that is true. I'm also not convinced morality need be objective to function. Convince me.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
If someone takes issue with abortion because of the sanctity of life, a right to life, or "its murder!", how can any exception be allowed? Is abortion in the case of incest not murder? Does sanctity or a right to life get suspended when a fetus is the product of rape?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
A regional medical center in Arkansas is requiring all staff to be vaccinated by Oct 8. About 5% of staff are using religious exemptions to avoid getting vaccinated because they were developed with fetal cells lines (from an abortion in 1973).
Interestingly, a number of OTC medications were also developed with this same cell line. Hospital administrators, in an effort to ensure sincere belief and perhaps inform those unaware of the scope of their convictions, are requiring objectors to sign a form stating they will cease using these drugs as well. These include Tylenol, Ibuprofen, Motrin, Tums, Pepto Bismol, aspirin, Benadryl, etc.
[LINK]
Suffice to say, I am of the opinion there is nothing immoral with using any of these drugs/vaccines. Even if someone were opposed to abortion, the abortion from which these cells are derived has already occurred. No amount of conscientious objection will change that. Might it be that from a prolife position utilizing these cells is the best way to honor the fetus from which they came?
I dont know - food for thought.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Wrong answers only.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
'How can the Star Spangled Banner be racist?', you might wonder. It is about patriotic pride that the American flag stood after battle, right?! Most of us are blissfully unaware the poem from which the Star Spangled Banner (SSB) comes from has four verses - it is the third verse where controversy arises:
And where is that band who so vauntingly sworeThat the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,A home and a country, should leave us no more?Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.No refuge could save the hireling and slaveFrom the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave,O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
There can be little argument Francis Scott Key (FSK), the author of the poem which later became the national anthem, was racist. He was a slave owner and anti-abolitionist. He believed Africans in America were "a distinct and inferior race of people, which all experience proves to be the greatest evil that afflicts a community.” He petitioned for free blacks to return to Africa. A few weeks before writing the poem he likely would have seen Colonial Marines (a unit of freed slaves) fighting with the British in the demoralizing loss at Bladensburg. This defeat allowed the occupation of Washington and the burning of the Capitol.
In this context, it can hardly be argued FSK, when referring to 'freeman' or 'the free', would have included Black people of any status. On that alone, the argument for a racist SSB can be made. Beyond this, the third verse specifically mentions 'hirelings and slaves' as unable to hide from fearful fleeing or death. "Hirelings" might be considered a bit ambiguous referring to mercenaries, working men, etc., but "slaves" is without ambiguity along with the threat of retribution to them. For these reasons, I contend our national anthem should be retired for something more representative of all Americans.
I want to hear your thoughts - persuade me otherwise.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
...and how did you come to this definition?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
...and why should I accept your belief as true?
Make your best argument.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
PGA2.0: Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the Word of Christ. Do you understand the deeper meaning there?
Faith can be used to prop up any belief..even those which are demonstrably false. This makes "Faith" a completely worthless basis for belief.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
I recently found out one of my close friends is a young Earth creationist. He is an engineer working in the aerospace field. Obviously, he is a smart guy, but he has a blind spot here. I pointed him to evidence which argued for an Earth older than 6000 years (his number) such as radiometric dating, dendrochronology, and ice cores. He has taken to studying radiometric dating. It has been awhile since I've had this debate, so I'd appreciate any arguments against radiometric dating from our resident young earthers or those familiar with their arguments. I'd like to be prepared for our next conversation. Thanks in advance!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Science and Nature
Whatever you do...don't express your own views here!!
Thor is the one true god. Prove me wrong!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Highlight and exaggerate core components of the views of the person above you. This is for fun - leave the thin-skins out in the hall! 😜
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
I've been told "contradictions dont exist in the Bible". I know this to be false, but the discussion really doesn't interest me. I thought one of you might find this a subject you could sink your teeth into...so here ya go!
@Dr.Franklin
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
This was RoderickSpoke's question. "Do you think the incidences recorded in the O.T. that specifically deal with the Exodus was fact, or fiction?"
I think the Exodus story is fiction. Millions of people wandering through a desert for 40 years would have left massive amounts of evidence. This evidence does not exist- thus, it did not happen as described.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
I was recently charged with providing an example of a "verse completely void of cross-references that doesn't fit with the rest of the Bible. I think the default response might be to provide contradictions, but this didn't really go with the point that spawned this question. The Bible is thought (by many) to be consistent in its narrative, but given many different minds over a large period of time it wouldn't be surprising if some things did not fit together.
Here was my submission:
Mark 16:8 They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.This is how our oldest and best manuscripts of the 1st gospel ends. The other gospels writers made sure to have the witnesses TELL other people and have Jesus show his resurrected self! At a later date, someone (it is supposed it might be a scribe) made an ending for Mark (Mark 16:9-20) to fix this problem.
I welcome other solutions to this challenge and criticism to mine.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
To anyone who holds slavery in the Bible was nothing more than temporary indentured servitude, I ask:
Would you be my 'indentured servant' as defined by Leviticus 25:44-46?
Leviticus 25:44-46 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45 Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have [a]produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46 You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Christian nationalism holds that the US was founded on "Judeo-Christian" principles. "Judeo-Christian" seems nonsensical to begin with (Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity and vice versa). Regardless, principles in the holy texts of Judaism and Christianity are so distinctly different than those embodied in America's founding documents that to suggest a link between them is to grossly misrepresent America.
Rather than waste time defending against arguments that might not be used, I leave it to proponents to define "Judeo-Christian principles" and provide arguments. Perhaps, each respondent may limit themselves to one or two of their best arguments, and let's do our best to keep it civil folks!
FYI, there is an identical post in the religion section should anyone feel their arguments would be more appropriate there.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Christian nationalism holds that the US was founded on "Judeo-Christian" principles. "Judeo-Christian" seems nonsensical to begin with (Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity and vice versa). Regardless, principles in the holy texts of Judaism and Christianity are so distinctly different than those embodied in America's founding documents that to suggest a link between them is to grossly misrepresent America.
Rather than waste time defending against arguments that might not be used, I leave it to proponents to define "Judeo-Christian principles" and provide arguments. Perhaps, each respondent may limit themselves to one or two of their best arguments, and let's do our best to keep it civil folks!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
I do not believe in Santa Claus, Sasquatch, fairies, gnomes, elves, dragons, unicorns, god(s) because I have seen nothing sufficient to convince me of the existence of such things.
I realize some may object to god(s) being lumped in with these other mythical beings, but no offense is meant. From my perspective, the evidence, or more precisely - lack of evidence, for each of these things is comparable.
That being said, I would like to know why any one of the claimed beings should be accepted as real and not the others.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
...look both ways before crossing? Me too. Making informed decisions based on verifiable indisputable evidence is a strategy that works.
However, when it comes to the subject of god, this standard of evidence cannot be met. If belief were to come without negative consequences (to the individual or society), then this wouldnt be a bad thing. Unfortunately, this all to often is not the case.
That being said, if something is believed true on insufficient evidence* AND this belief causes harm, should not it be tossed away? The alternative is equivalent to crossing the road without the benefit of the senses.
*Belief in god is held on insufficient evidence and often in the face of evidence to the contrary. (Fundamentalism, literalist interpretations, Young Earth Creationism, etc)
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
"The task force will help the department fully implement our religious liberty guidance by ensuring that all Justice Department components are upholding that guidance in the cases they bring and defend, the arguments they make in court, the policies and regulations they adopt and how we conduct our operations," Sessions said. "That includes making sure that our employees know their duties to accommodate people of faith."Sessions cited "a dangerous movement" aimed toward stripping away the First Amendment right to freedom of religion as a basis for forming the new task force."A dangerous movement, undetected by many, is now challenging and eroding our great tradition of religious freedom," Sessions said in his speech. "There can be no doubt. This is no little matter. It must be confronted and defeated."
I am a strong advocate for religious freedom, but I can't help but hear "religious privilege" when I hear the words in this context.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics