God designed cancer and birth defects.

[Jagella]

Apologists and creationists in particular love to wow us with the amazing design of the world. We have many beautiful animals and plants to ogle. And if that isn't amazing enough, we have discovered a genetic code we call "DNA" that exists in each of the trillions of our cells. This code lays out a blueprint for what we all are--amazing, functional, and beautiful beings! Surely a god must be responsible for all this wonder because we need a designer to explain DNA.

But wait. It doesn't always work out in a good way. DNA often "malfunctions" resulting in cancer and birth defects. What kind of design is that? What monster-god would plan that babies are born without eyes and that people would suffer and die as cancer cells multiply wildly and destroy their bodies?

Question for Debate: Did the Bible god design cancer and birth defects?

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 80 by postroad]

This graphic only covers about 2,000 years.



Even though it includes only the major branches of Christianity, it is clear that there is no "united belief" in Christianity. Some estimate 33,000 as the number of Christian sects in existence. I agree that division is a constant characteristic of Christendom.

Bringing it down to a much tighter focus, I've been through a number of "church splits" in my life and I can guarantee that they aren't the result of "united belief".

[William]

[Replying to post 73 by mrhagerty]

You are welcome to have a read up on my opinions about the bible in those links.

To what purpose? You won't entertain a debate about it.

You know this how?

The purpose of my making that known to you was to see how you would react. Your reaction tells me what I need to know about wasting time and effort through engaging with your belief systems.

See, if you were actually interested mr.hagaerty, you would not have made the comment you did. You would have clicked on the links I politely provided and you would have schooled up on the general position of the person you claim you want to debate about this with.

ICU.

[Deleted]

"Replying to post 80 by Tcg"

This graphic only covers about 2,000 years.

You're leaving out the scholarship of interpretation applied to the OT in OT times, and the Christology contained therein.

As for the chart, you all seem to be applying a ridiculous criteria on what constitutes unity. You seem to be expecting some Orwellian unity where all believers repeat word for word every doctrine exactly the same. IF anyone skips a word, it's chaos.

Down the right-side list of denominations, there is unity of faith on all the constitutive doctrines of the Christian faith. What is different between them is the weight one gives to a certain doctrine over another. All believe Christ is the only way to salvation, all believe in His Second Coming, all believe baptism is a command of the Lord, all believe the Bible is the supreme guide to faith and practice. Unity not confusion.

Even though it includes only the major branches of Christianity, it is clear that there is no "united belief" in Christianity. Some estimate 33,000 as the number of Christian sects in existence.

You're making the mistake that multiplicity of church denominations must equal dis-unity on critical doctrines.

I don't happen to believe in the peripherals that Catholics believe - Purgatory, Immaculate Conception of Mary. I would never call Catholics unsaved on that basis, because those same Catholics believe all the same constitutive doctrines I do.

The Catholic Church has a reciprocal belief about me. That's unity on the things that count.

[William]

[Replying to post 83 by mrhagerty]

All believe Christ is the only way to salvation, all believe in His Second Coming, all believe baptism is a command of the Lord, all believe the Bible is the supreme guide to faith and practice.

This is a good example of a fine list of faith-based nonnegotiable beliefs - which by definition are not up for debate and thus do not belong in a debate setting.

[Deleted]

"Replying to post 84 by William"

This is a good example of a fine list of faith-based nonnegotiable beliefs - which by definition are not up for debate and thus do not belong in a debate setting.

Isn't it rather telling that despite your many repetitions of this point as a clear violation of your rules, no one believes you. At least their acting that way. And even if they see your point, no one seems to care. Evidenced by the fact that they (and you) just go on as normal in all these debates, which I certainly welcome you to keep doing.

So isn't it more the case that following in earnest the advise your point recommends, is to spoil all the fun?

[Deleted]

"Replying to post 84 by William"

This is a good example of a fine list of faith-based nonnegotiable beliefs - which by definition are not up for debate and thus do not belong in a debate setting.

So what would you have me do? The challenge made to me was that the chart showed disunity. There simply is no other response in rebuttal than one that shows the alignment of beliefs that ARE in unity. But you say that's not allowed.

So I guess the response you're looking for from me is to say, "By gum you got me! I find myself with nothing to argue." Is that what you really expect me to do in order to stay legal?

Would you accept a challenge that charged that panentheism is self-contradictory and fails its first principles. Let's discuss it, and oh, here is a rule: no rebuttals that use statements from panentheism.

[William]

[Replying to post 85 by mrhagerty]

So isn't it more the case that following in earnest the advise your point recommends, is to spoil all the fun?

Hey! I am not the type to want to 'spoil fun' whatever that means to the individuals involved!

On the contrary, as long as it is understood as 'fun', and nothing more serious than that, I 'rest my case'.

Over to you *Jesus* /***

"Give us this day our daily fun".


{|= :D/ :nerd2:

[William]

[Replying to post 86 by mrhagerty]

Would you accept a challenge that charged that panentheism is self-contradictory and fails its first principles. Let's discuss it, and oh, here is a rule: no rebuttals that use statements from panentheism.

Sure, only, you have - perhaps inadvertently - moved the goalposts. I am writing directly about nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs. Panentheism does not have those. But if you feel that you are able to identify any, let me know.

[Deleted]

"William"

Sure, only, you have - perhaps inadvertently - moved the goalposts. I am writing directly about nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs. Panentheism does not have those. But if you feel that you are able to identify any, let me know.

Again, you miss the analogy. We critique a reply or rebuttal by comparing it to a fallacious type of reasoning. That's normal bill of fare in discussions.

When doing that, it's understood that the particulars don't have to relate, only the reasoning. Get it now?

[William]

[Replying to post 89 by mrhagerty]

When doing that, it's understood that the particulars don't have to relate, only the reasoning. Get it now?

What's with the attitude?

I will leave it to the reader to discern what is reasonable in relation to what is debatable and what is not.

My job is simply to identify the nonnegotiable. You make that job easy for me to do. which is why I quoted your post.