insane

How do you know the general principle isn't "always treat authority with respect and honour"? Oops, I think you just used common sense to decide how you feel about an issue. That's why I said it "might" be. I was more throwing out the idea that slavery is an application of a higher moral principle, not a principle itself, and therefore can be morally okay in one situation but not in another - because it's not a principle in itself.

Congratulations! I don't have a car yet for... insurance reasons :|

Really? So that's why the Israelites were so keen on STAYING IN EGYPT AS SLAVES, eh? I'm sure Moses would agree with you. ; ) Slavery isn't talked as being good in reference to the Israelites in Egypt. Show me a verse that does. The slavery that is not looked down upon is an Israelite taking a fellow Israelite as a "slave", or "servant". In fact, every seven years slaves are to be set free, and all people that owe debt become debt free. I think this is called the year of Jubilee, I might be wrong on that name. But either way you're taking things out of context. Hmm... Principles was a bad word, I shouldn't have used it. I should have said applying today's definitions to yesterday's definitions. Since I believe moral principles never change, I shouldn't have said that. Must have had a mind slip. My point was, is that back then, having slaves wasn't a bad thing - the slaves didn't think it was so bad! (I'm referring to the Israelite servant type slavery that isn't looked down upon, not the out-of-context slavery that the above quoted poster used). The principle remains the same for today, and for back then. I believe moral principles remain the same, but can be applied differently. Let's use cussing as an example. Some people believe it is wrong, and some people don't believe it is wrong. But what keep the principle from being relative is that the principle isn't based on cussing, it's based on general speech. I would vouch that the principle in question in this situation is "Always speak kindly to each other". Some people believe cussing is not speaking kindly, others differ. But they all hold the principle that speaking kindly is better than speaking unkindly. Cussing is just a way of applying it - people can apply the principle in different ways, but the principle remains intact. So the principle relating to slavery might be to "always treat your fellow man with respect and honour". Back then, slavery upheld that principle - since slaves were given decent wages, and a good quality of life. They could go free every seven years, with provisions given so they could get a new start! But today, slavery isn't like that; or seen as such. Slavery doesn't uphold the principle today, so it isn't condoned. But that is because slavery is an application of a more general principle that will always remain intact.

Ugh my brother does that too, it drives me nuts.

So your set of morals is completely irrelevent to the Bible. You don't "pick" and "choose" from the Bible, you just agree with the Bible when it's convenient to your thought process. So it's more like the Bible agreeing with you on some points, not you agreeing with the Bible. Back then slavery was an alternative to being homeless. It wasn't "hey, I want to oppress someone and get free labour". Taking on a slave meant taking on a member of the family, and saving them from a life of poverty. Slaves were sometimes treated so well they returned to their masters as bondservants, willingly. Being a slave wasn't considered socially low back then, you're applying today's definitions to yesterday's principles.

That argument only works for a christian though, whereas in the example he gave the reasoning shown could be achieved by both christians and non-christians. Yep, I was just saying that God may have had "correct" reasoning behind His laws given.

Pragmatism is a method of analyzing things. A way of thinking. A way of philosophizing. There is nothing about pragmatism that forces someone to "know" something for sure. It is merely a method of conjuring up speculation. Pragmatism = "A method in philosophy where value is determined by practical results." Justifying "bad things" using pragmatism works. Justifying "bad things" using the Bible doesn't work. Why? Because things like slavery can be justified in the bible (Ephesians 6:5) but not in pragmatism. You give pragmatism too much credit. And you misquote what pragmatism is. Pragmatism isn't a means to find a "value" based on practicality - early pragmatists such as James and Pierce say that pragmatism is a means to find truth based on practicality. This makes truth relative - what one person sees as practical another may not, making truth different for two people. This isn't very pragmatic, making pragmatism unpragmatic, which is a self-refutation. A problem with your pragmatism vs. Bible argument is that you fail to recognize that God may have given us those laws BECAUSE God knows that alcohol clouds our judgment,for example. He probably knows more about the effects alcohol can give you, seeing as, He's God.

Exactly. IQ stands for Intelligence Quotient. Not intelligence level. That's why a three-year-old with an IQ of 180 is nowhere near as smart as someone my age with an IQ of 100.

Do you disagree with the quiz? Mind showing me why? The quiz is correct in showing that the Bible is not a history textbook, or a science textbok. What the quiz fails to do is discredit Christianity because Christianity isn't based on stupid little facts. It's based on theological truths that are consistent throughout scripture.

As soon as I saw the author I knew the quiz would be something like that. Taking shots at irrelevant facts while completely ignoring the deep theological truths that are consistently portrayed through the gospel accounts. Not to mention lying about his score - what was the point of that? Every time you start posting here half your posts end up insulting Christianity.

The VERY FIRST STICKY: Advertise Your Thing Here

Plato had many personas (usually appearing in the form of dialogues; such as Plato asking Timaeus how the world was created and Timaeus explaining it rather then Timaeus asking Plato). The problem is we don't know if Socrates is just a persona of Plato or a real person (Since Socrates never authored any texts). If historians feel that some of Socrates later work is just Plato's persona, then what makes his earlier work not PlatoÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s persona? Is it really that hard to comprehend? The whole article does question his existence (ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅMany of the dialogues seem to use Socrates as a device for Plato's thought, and inconsistenciesÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ,ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Are you serious? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_problem That article doesn't question Socrates' existence, it questions whether or not Plato's writing about him are an accurate representation of his teachings.

Let's not all be talking about how absurd presents for easter are. He already said he realizes it isn't normal, and that it's just a tradition his parents grew up into.

That's too bad! Our old toaster couldn't fit bagels.

You weren't talking about Jesus as a human being, and neither was I. You said Jesus was different from the rest of us, so we should just accept him without question. The same could be said for Apollo. I never said that. I said that just because we can't do things doesn't mean that Jesus can't. I never said anything about accepting faith without question. Either way it's really beside the point - my point was that if He wants to insult our faith he should provide reasoning behind it, and instead it turned into an analogy analyzing debate. It's a suggestion :P it only takes a poor analogy to refute an even poorer one. But again, see the above. This wasn't what I intended to do by asking someone to stop baselessly insult Christians.

My friend races and he says that having cancer actually improved Armstrong's racing abilities - before he started racing, he was a triathelete - which meant he had upper body muscle that weighed him down when he was a bike racer - after cancer his body was depleted of that muscle, meaning he could rebuild his body into perfect form for cycling.

And I'm not Apollo, so I should just accept that he really does drive the sun across the sky every day? Even atheists accept the fact that Jesus existed. I don't understand what you're trying to say. The difference between Apollo and Christ is that Christ existed and did these "miracles" (whether you believe or not), and Apollo never did exist.

http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?p=285 ... t=#2850272 You post your disbelief about a child dying on a schoolbus in front of someone's eyes and that is okay - but when he posts his disbelief concerning something related to your religion it is intolerant? Sounds like a double standard to me. I gave a valid reason for that belief. Merc often just says "Christians are fools" or "the Bible is a fairy tale", without providing any reason, or respect for that matter. The analgoy given is also fallacious. Merc isn't Jesus Christ, and he can't go comparing himself to Him saying "I can't do this, so niether can He". That is untrue - you missed the first part of my post where I disagreed with Bubsa but also said that I liked his post, and how he thought. I wouldn't go that far :P some people have some pretty hurtful/hateful beliefs.

Too bad, they're statistically eliminated from the playoffs this season :P I would like to see the Leafs make the playoffs, but it's next to impossible. Not like they aren't trying or anything - Mats Sundin posted 6 points (4g, 2a) in yesterday's win over Florida.

For sure - I like your thinking Bubsa, even though I disagree with you. I believe there may be *some* parts of the Bible that aren't to be taken literally (ex. the creation story), but I believe in Christ's miracles. I would appreciate it if you would stop underhandedly insulting Christianity on every thread that makes it remotely possible. It makes you look quite intolerant.

Players: (these are just my favourite, not necessarily the best) 1. Darcy Tucker 2. Dion Phaneuf 3. Sidney Crosby 4. Alex Ovechkin 5. Jason Spezza Teams (these are who I think are actually the best): 1. Ottawa (when they get Havlat and Hasek back they'll be unstoppable) 2. Calgary (with an average of 1.7 goals against at home, they'll be unstoppable in the playoffs) 3. Detroit (their divison is super easy, bottom three are 13-14-15 in the conference) 4. Carolina 5. Dallas

No, Jesus walks on the Sea of Galilee (aka Sea of Tiberias). Different water body :P

Sorry, no topic bumping allowed. Especially after 2 minutes. Try actually looking around, I'm sure there's an existing thread that already answers your question.

This has been posted already, near the top of the second page.