@jbluhm86 said:

That was fricken awesome. I have been saying that stuff about Maher for years and years. He acts like some authority figure on politics, ethics, morality and religion and all he does is poke at the absurdity of things, but would get killed by anyone intellectually superior.

@jbluhm86 said:

This is a great debate. I can't help but think that the Hitchens (the athiest) hinges to much of his debate against Christianity on the Old Testament, Atrocities made by the Roman Catholic Church, and various other "fringes" of Christianity and misinterpretations of Biblical text.

However, he makes very good points and arguments. There is a term called anthropomorphism. This is attributing human like characteristics to a deity because we have no other way to define or describe the deity. In other words, that which we can't understand, we try to understand in a way in which we can. Moses, the author of the Pentateuch tries to relate and understand and teach God to a people that firmly can't grasp who God is. This lasts until the time of Christ when He reveals the true nature of God fulfilling the "law". To argue against Christianity because the OT speaks of circumcision and the death penalty is making an argument against a narrative that millions of Christians do not agree with it. Largely because it misses Christ entirely. This does not make the historical atrocities void nor should we dismiss them. But rather, we explain that during the period of the OT, they missed God and His nature.

When we read, for example, the creation account. Why is it so vague and written as if it was found in a coloring book? This is because this was the only way man could understand it. Is it literal, some believe so. But is it also not wrong to think that God did not reveal ALL to Moses and all the authors of the OT His true nature, spirituality and the Universe. The Bible doesn't, nor can we think it should reveal all to us.

I also cringe because one can tell (not knowing his full background) of his disdain for the Roman Catholic Church and the atrocities, crimes, and monopoly it had during the early part of the church. Still to this day, the damage is being paid for and is used by many, like Hitchens to build cases against religion. Shame on you RCC.

@jbluhm86 said:

One more Steve, just to show Hitch wasn't a lefty-liberal:

Dude I've been a huge fan of Hitchens for many many years. Did I lead you to believe otherwise?

WSS

The Nye v Ham debate is a good watch

@jbluhm86 said:

That's understandable. Hopefully I wasn't giving the impression of purposely ignoring Alistar McGrath's response; I just felt that Hitch's response in the first video pretty accurately described how I feel about the "miracle" of Christ's supposed sacrifice.

Like I said I was just curious about the debate portion. I was very active in the forensic league in high school and realize that, even though I was not a debater and made all my points in individual events, that your opinion really has nothing to do with the debate. You are assigned one side of the other and are judged on how well you present and defend that idea. I can't think of any part of Hitchens speech that I could counter very well.

WSS

@jbluhm86 said:

Idk if you were referring to me, but here's the whole debate,

WSS

@westside-steve said:

I'd have liked to hear the rebuttal.

WSS

Idk if you were referring to me, but here's the whole debate, if you're interested;

WSS

@logicisforsquares said:

It was a different time, yes. However, Cal was trying to argue the point that the rules from the Old Testament still apply today and that Jesus didn't change that whole thing.

It was a different time and that was my point. Like slavery. It's only been out of favor worldwide in the last few hundred years.

Jesus probably never lectured on video games either.

WSS

@jbluhm86 said:

Nice misdirection there, but you didn't answer his question...

You mean about the voluntary pro bono employment?

*******************************************************

Judges 1:27–33 also describes the failure of the Israelites to complete the conquest of the land through removing the Canaanites. Verses 27–28 states, “Manasseh did not drive out the people of Beth Shan or Taanach or Dor or Ibleam or Megiddo and their surrounding settlements, for the Canaanites were determined to live in that land. When Israel became strong, they pressed the Canaanites into forced labor but never drove them out completely.”

At the height of their power during this time, the Israelites made the Canaanites slaves rather than wiping them out. Perhaps the Israelites believed putting these people into forced labor was more beneficial than destroying them, though the text does not directly mention a reason. However, it is clear from Judges 2 that this decision was part of Israel’s disobedience that led to additional problems.

In Judges 2:1–3 the angel of the Lord delivers a message to Israel: “I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land I swore to give to your ancestors. I said, ‘I will never break my covenant with you, and you shall not make a covenant with the people of this land, but you shall break down their altars.’ Yet you have disobeyed me. Why have you done this? And I have also said, ‘I will not drive them out before you; they will become traps for you, and their gods will become snares to you.’” These Canaanites would remain in the land and serve as enemies to the Israelites, a thorn in their side for years to come. The struggles recounted in theBook of Judges are the result of the incomplete obedience in the Book of Joshua.

It is clear that God chose Israel as His people not because they were the most faithful but because of His love for them (see Deuteronomy 7:7–8). God chose to fulfill His covenant with Abraham and his descendants, bringing the children of Israel into their land despite their many failures.

While it is easy to look back and note the weaknesses of the ancient Israelites, their example illustrates our need for God as well. Despite God’s many blessings, we fail Him, too. That is why God sent His perfect Son, Jesus Christ, to be the substitute for our sins. Through faith in Him, we can have a relationship with God today as well as eternal life (John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8–9).

@calfoxwc said:

No, it's called "vicarious redemption". Also known as "scapegoating".

(Apologies in advance, Steve...)

@oldbrownsfan said:

Nice misdirection there, but you didn't answer his question...

@calfoxwc said:

They're impossible to follow cause they weren't valid to begin with. Just a bunch of humans that came up with some shit to convince themselves they were alright and somehow more special than others. Thta's it. And we blindly follow this stupid shit thousands of years later and I the grand scheme of things, we're as ignorant of the universe today as we were back then.

******************************************

See above. All the religious laws in the OT were impossible to follow. We all fall short of the Glory of God.

That's what Jesus died for our sins on the Cross. It's call the Grace Gift of salvation.

that's why:

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

@vaportrail said:

weren't me.

@logicisforsquares said:

No, I quoted Vapor:my comments are almost always under the asterisks.

Posted Yesterday, 05:26 PM

@calfoxwc said:

"Sure sounds like Jesus thought the Old Testament still applied."

That and your comment that the moral laws from the Old Testament still applying gave me that impression. if that isn't what you meant then I think it got lost in translation.

@calfoxwc said:

So you're saying Jesus's actual teachings were to wipe out the OT? Well.....welcome to light Cal, you finally got it right. Need some shades for that blinding sun?