California Baptist University debate team refuses to defend abortion!
Wednesday February 4th, 2004. This is show #25.
Wednesday February 4th, 2004. This is show #25.
One of the interesting comments that we got on one of the chat room emails about the team . . . There were several hits that kept saying, "In order to be a good debater you need to know the enemy and you need to be able to play the devil's advocate. And one person immediately wrote back . . . "let the devil advocate for himself. These kids deserve a standing ovation. No need for devil's advocates. He has plenty of those."
Originally posted by deardelmar
amen!
Originally posted by Zakath
I've frequently played advocatum diaboli in religious arguments. ...
Exactly, jhodgeiii.:first: POTD!Originally posted by jhodgeiii
...Although I understand the logic of some of the preceding arguments (like why one should be able to argue advocatus diaboli), it seems to me that a person of good character would have his limits playing this role given certain extreme, moral topics, especially those involving life and death, guilt and innocence....
It's a web forum. Of course I've done it before.Originally posted by LightSon
You would do this Zakath? :shocked:
I'm taken aback.
I see your point, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.Originally posted by jhodgeiii
...If you get too many Christians publicly arguing against their own values, who knows? Christians might end up laying the foundation for gay marriage some day!
I agree. Great post!
Originally posted by Zakath
I see your point, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
The thing about trends is that they seldom continue to their extreme point (usually for reasons of physcial laws).Originally posted by jhodgeiii
If the "civil union" trend continues throughout the country, it's bound to happen...
Bob responded with:We went on to explain to various individual that it would be like debating that all Muslims should be removed from the United States, or that homosexuality should be outlawed – these are resolutions that reflect intolerance that were asked to be debated.
We felt that such a specific and direct link to abortion and supporting partial birth abortion was completely intolerant of anyone who had chosen a religious point of view, whether it be Christian, Mormon, Islam - those religions just would not support it.
Individual framers of the resolution may not have known if the competitors themselves had a partial birth abortion, and it was quite inconsiderate of those that were struggling with the issue already.
Now that Bob has made an extended and blatantly pointed statement about his view on the historical legality of homosexuality, he says:Now certainly I don’t want to take our brief interview in that direction, but since you brought it up – homosexuality was actually against the law for 3500 years from of Moses through the time of Paul through our founding fathers who made sure it was criminal in our 13 colonies right up through the 1900s up to the late 1900’s.
Homosexuality has been criminalized in our Judaeo-Christian culture for 3500 years now and only in the last couple of decades has Hollywood Hillary, humanists, had a movement to decriminalize homosexuality, and it could be argued that that has led worldwide to the deaths of millions of people suffering through the sad physical consequences of that behavior.
Is this last statement Christian honesty? Rather like doing exactly what you want to do, and then saying that isn’t what you want to do.But I really don’t want to bring that up.
Is this last statement Christian honesty? Rather like doing exactly what you want to do, and then saying that isn’t what you want to do.
My point still applies. Trends are still about connecting data points over time. Few societal trends are ever carried through to completion due to many sociological factores. If this wasn't the case, the human race would probably have killed itself off centuries ago.Originally posted by jhodgeiii
How about trends that pertain to rights?
I'd say that depends entirely on the circumstances. Are you familiar with a law called "The Patriot Act" that was enacted in 2002?Generally, rights granted to people are very difficult to remove (I have no statistics to prove this, but it seems to be a reasonable assessment).
I don't see why, purely from a legal or logical point of view, they should have any different rights than heterosexuals. They should, in my opinion, have no less rights, and certainly no additional ones.Thus, I only see homosexuals gaining more rights, definitely not losing rights. Nor do I see the amount of rights they have today staying put since they are short of heterosexual rights.