Allowing same-sex marriage shows that religion is the best way to decide morals.

It's helpful since I need to be careful of character count. 1. I'm staying with my original idea. The bible gives very precise laws on right and wrong. If someone goes against that law, his perspective may have changed, but not the religion itself. Secular laws can be changed when perspectives change, the bible stays the same no matter the current perspective of the people. The bible has changed over the years. Ignoring for the moment the issue of translations, and focusing solely on content, but it was also selected over centuries. [1] 2 Here Pro seems, at least to me, to be conceding his case. The case is that "gay marriage shows that religion is the best way to decide morals". If gay marriage isn't wrong, then it is the religions who seek to prohibit it who are wrong. And if that's the case, then Pro's argument is completely invalidated, because then for certain "gay marriage would not show that religion is the best way to decide morals". 3. Everything can be allowed with enough time. .. I'll get to the "Hitler" point in a bit further down. But as to the French Revolution: Robespierre attempted to institute a new state religion, "the Cult of the Supreme Being". This religious cult helped Robespierre usher in a new series of executions. Here, religion clearly was not "the best way to decide morals". 4. As I have said before, the bible has laws set down, secular morals are not set down. They are changed by people the majority of people vote in. .. As has been noted to Pro before, secular morality DOES NOT EQUAL morality by majority. He can't simply blithely assert a false equivalence. So your statement is wrong. The majority of people believe in abortion, so it is coming to be allowed since the majority wants it. There's a host of things wrong with this statement. In the first place, abortion is actually more restricted than it has been in years. Due to "religious" arguments which should have no place in the United States, there are several states which have managed to kill abortion provision entirely. In the second place, abortion was allowed due to a Supreme Court ruling which had nothing to do with "the majority", except perhaps "the majority" of the court. In the third place, if Pro would like to establish that abortion is wrong he is free to do so. But until then, this entire "fault" is a red herring. 5. Set laws make sure no opinions can affect the outcome. As has been previously noted to Pro, and proven with unrebutted points, religion does not provide "set laws" necessarily. Due to its very nature there can be fluctuation: revelation can happen to anyone, should God will it. Further, the number of atrocities that can be laid at the feet of religion do not, in of themselves, make religion necessarily "bad", but it certainly shows that religion does not "make sure no opinions affect the outcome". 6. The bible verses you mention doesn't count those younger than a month as it is the grace month to make sure they live. .. My point was that they were counted less. And it is a point you have now conceded. Anything else is your INTERPRETATION of the text. Which is not "set". If someone wanted to use that passage to justify infants being worth less than a person, they could; you'd be stuck arguing "what does this text say" instead of "what's acutally right? " . .. Also, you assume that premature birth equals death, but this is not so. The baby could easily be alive. .. Modern medicine is able to keep a prematurely born infant alive if it's around 20 weeks. No less. That's about 4.5 months, or half the pregnancy. Obviously, prior to the invention of things like actual medicines and incubators, the window was much narrower. Does Pro really think that, 2000 years ago, in the middle of a street or city, where there were no hospitals, a prematurely born infant stood a significant chance of living? It's just not true. The mortality rate for non prematurely born infants was astronomical. You assume the worse side, showing biased ideas. Also, you find bad people usually have bad kids. That is why children was killed with their mother. Pro rounds out point 6 with two ridiculous arguments. He claims I "assume the worse side, showing biased ideas". Pro has put forth no actual argument for this other than his unfounded assertion that ancient peoples were able to deal appropriately with premature birth; it can be dismissed for want of evidence. As to his second point, that's ridiculous. If we take, for the sake of argument, fetuses as actual CHILDREN, rather than fetuses, then it was being recommended that the children be BURNED ALIVE because the mother had done wrong, and Pro's defense is that "bad people usually have bad kids"? That doesn't address the fact that the infant was clearly not worth saving in the opinion of the bible; Pro is advocating for abortion for criminals, negating its "wrongness". He also conveniently drops the point about how the bible says to execute rape victims if they don't cry out enough (Deuteronomy 22:23-24). 7. You say "we" will say no to this. Who is this we? . .. I used Pro's "we", and now he hopes to use it against me. Should I have thrown his use back in his face in this manner? It does nothing to further his point, unless he was trying again to conflate secular morality with morality by majority again. Are you thinking that everyone will magically come together against this idea. Please remember we as humanity stood by as the Jews were killed in Germany. Yes there was a "we" who stood against it, but that didnt work. For Pro's reference, since he obviously has a poor grasp of history, Germany was able to be convinced to kill the Jews so easily because of religion. The SS, in fact, had "Gott Mitt Uns" (God with us) inscribed on their belt buckles, and Hitler played on centures of Christian bigotry towards to Jews. It hardly makes his case that "religion" is better. Pro continues to conflate secular morality with morality by majority. His repetition of the assertion doesn't make it so. 8. The bible does not approve of slavery as we know now. It a much better back than, so you are taking it out of context. The bible doesn't considered woman worse than men, just more support depended. Which many people will agree with nowadays too. A few points here. ..1, YES IT DID. Pro obviously doesn't know enough about his own book. I presume he's thinking of the laws that were in the bible regarding JEWISH slaves. THAT slavery was far more like indentured servitude than slavery as conceived in the modern era. I urge him to go back and actually read his book: However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. .. .You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT) 9 My opponent seems to miss the point here. Just as the bible is believed to be divinely inspired, so too is the Book of Mormon. And whatever the "next" revelation will be. 10 My opponent first goes back to the Nazis (who were, again, religious), then makes an unclear claim about dropping a bomb during wartime. Then he says "Every evil thing has been thoroughly thought out and planned", and concludes that "Reason doesn't work for deciding morals. " That is no argument. That evil things were "thought out" does not mean they were morally justified. Religious things have been "thought up". And there have been millions of people killed in the name of religion, by Pro's argument religion "doesn't work for deciding morals". Over to Pro. [1] -- . http://www.biblica.com...