Dan Barker Vs. Dinesh D'Souza Pt. 5 of 11 (audio Only)

Yes, that's true.

Although, I find it somewhat more amazing and ridiculous how D'Souze takes that stance ... RIGHT AFTER Barker pointed out that JESUS himself (Hello! New Testament! lol) talked about how some slaves need more beating than others, and that he never even clearly hinted that slavery was wrong, not even in parables (and that the Bible was used to DEFEND slavery by the South---including the New Testament).

Yeah, there's definitely cherry picking on Dinesh's part.

Dinesh was also saying that the west under the bible abolished slavery. Does he also not know that the bible was the justification for slavery over time and that this "christian nation" was one of the largest participants of the slave trade. That basically proves the questioner's point: Under the bible, this was justified, but then it wasn't. The same thing could happen with our beliefs now.

"I interpret the old testament as modified by the new..."

Yes, you do... Someone else does not. So, who is right? You're reading the same book!!!

Eh, both ancient pagan Rome and ancient pagan Athens were respectively a republic and democracy at points. D'Souza has to know that. It's almost like Dinesh is being willfully deceptive.

What kind of half-assed tactic is it to change someone else's theoretical framework to avoid answering the question? He said it was GOD. It wasn't an invitation to sermonize about the devil.

D'souza can't just give a straight answer, can he? I've seen him debate many people many times and he always seems to weasel his way out of answering the really hard questions as they were asked, instead substituting his own versions of the questions that aren't really asking the same thing. Strawman fallacy.

D'Souza inaccurately describes how the law conceives of and deals with "attempt" crimes, making a feeble and deeply misguided attempt to portray it as a secular manifestation of the Christian idea that mere thought can be immoral. The fact that one must, as D'Souza seems not to realize he said, "take steps to carry [a crime] out" shows what even a first-year law student knows, i.e., there must be *both* an actus reus and a mens rea for there to a crime. Absent the actus reus, no crime. Oy.

What an idiot D'Souza is, Barker cited a verse from the New Testament.

(Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

this is not a yes or no survey.... its an intellectual debate lol

b4 - lol that was funny

This debate is so poorly organized. The debaters are interrupted too often, and are not allowed to shape the direction of the debate themselves.

"D'souza is in a higher league altogether than dan"

If that league was entitled, "League of ignorance and stupidity" then yes...he is in a higher league than dan.

Does d'souza have a problem with simply saying "Yes" or "No"?

I know, selvajane, D'souza is clearly a master at deconstructing difficult questions and reconstructing them into elaborate strawmen that only geniuses like you could find believable.

Dan, on the other hand, is nothing special, just a plain honest debater.

I love the "you're taking it all out of context" bit. Is it bad that this is almost like stand-up comedy for me?

Christianity made slavery outdated? Now I have heard everything. Dinesh is the master of lying to himself and compartmentalizing directly conflicting information. Barker owns his ass on this point.

I agree D'souza his the king of spewing forth irrational nonsense.

D'souza is in a higher league altogether than dan

prayer only makes the person praying feel better.... Dinesh thinks he's special, aww how cute. also why would a god write the book we are to live by only to have us "interpret" it?? we he's so secretive?

the devil makes me say bad words!! >:)

Dinesh is the essence of self-ownage.

So it could be the devil telling you it dinesh? How do you know the bible was gods word then? Maybe it was the evil forces that did that too?