Don't forget about the debate. You have a week to make your argument . . . again.
That wouldn’t make sense. I mean, wouldn’t both people just vote for themselves anyway? People could use this to lose on purpose, like you maybe.
Another one of his debates where he tries to make it impossible for the contender to win.
Instead of each person presenting evidence for each side, he instead attempts to trap his opponent with false logic.
These one round debates are even worse than the two round debates.
Yes, since homosexuality became “legal” in the US, the new punishment has become homosexuality itself. Imagine engaging in sodomy like that.
Never mind
Well, the original Y-chromosome had to come from somewhere.
You had no time to rebut since you only gave yourself one round.
Look at my comment
You're going need to provide a definition of slavery. Is it involuntary servitude? Unpaid work? Biblical slavery?
Have you looked at the debate so far?
No, it’s sexist to say that a man is allowed to remarry but a woman isn’t. It’s the union itself meant to be equal.
Would you like to have our own debate?
First, concerning AI, AI can admit that geocentism is possible, but it still needs to follow the narrative. AI doesn’t care if God judges its sins because it won’t see God and doesn’t have any sins.
You claim that the two models aren’t geometrically the same. Says who? Not the greatest scientists.
The so-called fictious forced are still used in heliocentric calculations. Newton admits they are real in the geocentric model.
Geocentrism is simpler. It doesn’t require time dilation and length contraction. It doesn’t require a universe that is expanding faster than the speed of light. It doesn’t need dark matter or dark energy. Geocentrism has two parts, the heavens and the earth. The heavens go around the earth. Occam’s razor, there.
Marriage isn’t a covenant because love isn’t needed for marriage to be valid.
You response is sexist. Jesus permitted remarriage for neither. He only spoke of a man because he was talking to men.
Because you can’t
The Bible doesn’t teach fornication destroys the one flesh bond. You think that a human can destroy what God has joined together? Paul teaches a man can become one flesh even with a harlot:
“Or know you not, that he who is joined to a harlot, is made one body? For they shall be, saith he, two in one flesh.” (1 Corinthians 6:16)
The Pauline previlege (1 Corinthians 7:15 ) allows a convert believer who is separated by an unbeliever to remarry since the marriage was not sacramental. It was not what God had joined together.
Also, marriage is not a covenant. It is a reflection of Christ and His Church.
The text does not allow remarriage.
“But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.” (Matthew 5:32)
This specific one says putting away a wife for any reason other than fornication is adultery. The next part says anyone who marries someone put away commits adultery, regardless of the reason.
The exception clause does not pertain to remarriage. Mark and Luke don’t even mention the clause, since they focus on the remarriage instead of the separation part.
“But to them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband. And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife.” (1 Corinthians 10-11)
Does Israel play a role in the New Covenant? From Israel’s rejection came salvation to the Gentiles.
Mary is also the spiritual Mother of the Church.
Also, the Mary interpretation works better when looking at Psalm 45, which is directed to Christ. Who will be the Queen of Heaven? Can a place be queen? Also, the Bible starts and ends with a woman and the enemy.
Did you change it to putting away? You ignore the exception clause.
Are you looking for someone else? I can definately debate this, but if you’re tried of me, I won’t debate you.
I think He allows “putting away” or separation, but not divorce (maybe civil divorce but not religious divorce. And you are correct that remarriage after separation is not allowed.
Jesus had to die to save us. If the death is the means of salvation, then the type of deaths makes sense too. Deuteronmy 21:23 is foreshadowing Christ's death in a way. The curse is the atonement. Why do you think the cross is the Christian symbol anyway?
Jesus came to take the throne of David (Luke 1:32). In the Old Testament, the mother of the king was queen, not the wife.
"The daughters of kings have delighted thee in thy glory. "The queen stood on thy right hand, in gilded clothing; surrounded with variety" (Psalm 45:9). It makes sense when you then look at Revelation 12:1 "And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars."
Well, the cross was the means of salvation that God chose. He chose the cross for a reason.
And I’m pretty sure all your responses have been from AI.
If you want to have our own debate on the topic, I’d be glad to debate you.
The center of mass can be different from the geometric center since more weight is on one side and less weight on the other side.
Newton:
"In order for the Earth to be at rest in the center of the system of the sun, planets, and comets, there is required both universal gravity and another force in addition that acts on all bodies equally according to the quantity of matter in each of them and is equal and opposite to the accelerative gravity with which the Earth tends to the sun...And thus celestial bodies can move around the Earth at rest, as in the Tychonic system." - Newton himself
"Whether the Earth rotates once a day from west to east, as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west, as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. This shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption, which can never be proved or disproved by observation."- Physicist, Dennis Sciama
Stellar Parallax:
"Let it be understood at the outset that it makes no difference, from the point of view of describing planetary motion, whether we take the Earth or the Sun as the center of the solar system. Since the issue is one of relative motion only, there are infinitely many exactly equivalent descriptions referred to different centers - in principle any point will do, the Moon, Jupiter...So the passions loosed on the world by the publication of Copernicus' book, De revolutionibus orbium caelestium libri VI, were logically irrelevant..."- Astronomer, Fred Hoyle
Redshift and Blueshift:
These actually support geocentrism. Everything is moving away from Earth, the center. Hubble was mad when he saw this:
"Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena."
Hubble admits that geocentrism cannot be disproven but is merely not preferred. The reason is likely to avoid God.
Retrograde motion:
An experiment was done to show it doesn't prove heliocentrism:
"The Eames machine ran continually without default for something like sixth months. As the circles turned, the rods, representing the observed line of sight to Mars, always remained parallel. Each time Mars came on the inner side of the epicycle, the combined counterclockwise motions of the deferent and epicycle caused the geocentric rod to briefly swing clockwise, the so-called retrograde motion. Whenever that happened, in the heliocentric model the faster-moving Earth was always nearest Mars and bypassing it, so the heliocentric rod remained in perfect tandem with the geocentric rod. It was a brilliant demonstration of the equivalence of the two systems, and what worked for Mars would work for each of the other planets."
Baseless Claim:
"A fundamental principle in scientific model selection is that simpler models with greater explanatory power are preferable to more complex models with less explanatory power." - ChatKnight
The geocentric model is the simplest answer ever. It has 2 parts, the heavens and the Earth. The Earth is the center of mass. Everything goes around it. Nothing can beat it in simplicity. You ignore the rest of the universe and only focus on the Earth and Sun.
The heliocentric model was forced to invent a whole new dimension, time, to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment. It had to add length contraction and time dilation and offer no explanation as to why either happens, thus violating metaphysics, that an effect must have a cause. It was also forced to abandon Euclidian geometry and go 2-dimensional to remove a center and turn the universe into a balloon to explain redshift without a central Earth.
You literally have made no sense.
The "explain-anything fallacy" was committed by Einstein to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment without saying the Earth was motionless. He and his friends blamed the results on the machine by claiming that the arms shrunk. By making the arm shrink, they were forced to also dilate the time, hence spacetime was born. Lorenz wanted an explanation to what caused the arm to shrink and created a formula to explain it. Einstein liked the formula but didn't want an explanation since he wanted no absolutes. He was then forced to say length contraction was just a principle of nature and claim that anything that moves shrinks as it moves.
In my model, the Sun is the geometric center while the Earth is the center of mass. The other planets orbit the Sun while the Sun orbits the Earth. It doesn't have those epicycles.
