i wish i could join
I dont think that you understand the concept of concent
very broad statement
cippriam you are every where
waste of time nelly really he has no basis or a good argument
Dude what are you talkin about this is way of topic started with christianity and now we are at math?
nelly did u get my msg
you are looking at the bible very black and White
Nelly i disagree on your point on evolution
can i join
Would love to get you guys on skype
@yogibearaz88 you can create a debate and challenge someone directly or join the lounge to have a group discussion
PS - If chance be the father of all flesh, disaster is his rainbow in the skyand when you hear "state of emergency", "Sniper kills ten", "Youths go looting","Bomb blasts school" it's but the sound of man worshiping his maker
Example of Christian site that doesn't like wives' consent: (article not from XIX century but 2018)https://biblicalgenderroles.com/2018/01/11/it-is-not-a-womans-consent-that-matters-it-is-gods/amp/
David Anderson, a Baptist pastor was banned inside EU or at least in Ireland.I watched few sermons of him. He is full of Bible quoting, and recommending to watch to decide if he chose Bible or a Secular or Liberal morality. To me it looks like it was the Bible.Again, David Anderson considers that woman has no consent after marriagehttps://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-europe-48252527
Nelly, gawd. The idea that people consent to be slaves by entering into war essentially would mean the geneva convention is more compassionate than God. Regardless, in the Torah YHWH commands enslavement of women and children of conquered enemies moreso than soldiers. Leviticus 25 specifically defines slaves as individuals who are purchased or won, not individuals who voluntarily enter into servitude. I'll finish this later. The title for the debate is lousy. You can't argue for a moral system being "better" than another, since that is subjective. And whatever he defines as better, you're going to say it can't be better because god made the Christian moral system and even if it seems cruel, it must not be because he is omnibenevolent. So you're both arguing that something which is subjective is objective, Nelly is arguing that a god could perform the logically impossible task of making morals objective and is stuck begging the question by saying "it came from god, thus is must be superior."I'll finish later. It's too much of a trainwreck to digest at once.