Brief thoughts on the Avalos - Mickelson Debate
Jan seemed to be trying to put a spotlight on all the unrecognized preconceptions that people had on the issue while ignoring Avalos. He was a bit crude at times, but I felt his assessment of the homosexual agenda was astute. I hope it shook people out of their God accepts everyone as they are(no repentance)/tolerance of sin attitude. I was awed that he shared the gospel during the debate as well. My problems with his debate was not offering some avenues to check out the different claims of Avalos, answering the question "what problem would you have with gay marriage" from himself rather than his position, and encouraging crowd interruption.
Avalos started by playing on people's ignorance of the difference between the old and new testament. He knew that the defense against his statements relied on the blunt belief of original sin and the law being a means of showing the sinfulness of mankind (Romans 3:20, 5:20, Galatians 3:19). This would also take a back flip to explain that the Law and the law of God are two different things. Avalos stuck to his trademarks of overburdening the argument, making sure to point out a past error of his opponent, and attacking straw men (this has to be his position if he isn't a hypocrite). I do think Avalos tried to grasp Jan and make a debate out of the debate, but Jan wasn't giving him much to grapple with. Avalos did raise a good question of moral relativism with the Bible (example - The Law being temporal/ for one culture) and I would have difficult explaining this and holding on to God's view of holiness. Besides the verses I've already given I'll add that a specific set of rules is not what is required. An understanding that one is by nature defiant to God, needs forgiveness, need "the new heart and new Spirit", and are made for worshiping God are the only things I can think of as required, but none of these things can be earned.
Anyway... I hope you enjoyed my convoluted thoughts. A question that I've been considering that would undermine Avalos' argument is how a naturalist comes to the conclusion that we are all equal and deserve to be treated as such. I mean we can recognize that equality sounds good, may promote good community, and secures our position from being ruffled, but it may also detract from humanity by encouraging genetic and economic dead-weight if the person is not imbued with an intrinsic God-given value. I hope I'm not offending, but if you were, and there is no God, your beliefs are based on feelings and opinions which have no imperative on my actions.
Avalos started by playing on people's ignorance of the difference between the old and new testament. He knew that the defense against his statements relied on the blunt belief of original sin and the law being a means of showing the sinfulness of mankind (Romans 3:20, 5:20, Galatians 3:19). This would also take a back flip to explain that the Law and the law of God are two different things. Avalos stuck to his trademarks of overburdening the argument, making sure to point out a past error of his opponent, and attacking straw men (this has to be his position if he isn't a hypocrite). I do think Avalos tried to grasp Jan and make a debate out of the debate, but Jan wasn't giving him much to grapple with. Avalos did raise a good question of moral relativism with the Bible (example - The Law being temporal/ for one culture) and I would have difficult explaining this and holding on to God's view of holiness. Besides the verses I've already given I'll add that a specific set of rules is not what is required. An understanding that one is by nature defiant to God, needs forgiveness, need "the new heart and new Spirit", and are made for worshiping God are the only things I can think of as required, but none of these things can be earned.
Anyway... I hope you enjoyed my convoluted thoughts. A question that I've been considering that would undermine Avalos' argument is how a naturalist comes to the conclusion that we are all equal and deserve to be treated as such. I mean we can recognize that equality sounds good, may promote good community, and secures our position from being ruffled, but it may also detract from humanity by encouraging genetic and economic dead-weight if the person is not imbued with an intrinsic God-given value. I hope I'm not offending, but if you were, and there is no God, your beliefs are based on feelings and opinions which have no imperative on my actions.