I’ve noticed unnecessarily long series of heated arguments between people who hold opposing viewpoints, but only one side being right about the issue being debated. Yet the debate could have been cut short had they not rephrased the same set points & counter-points over and over again. This type of recycling of arguments is often initiated by losing side, so as to make the audience forget about the current issue and gradually transition to another debate about a easily winnable issue.
Example of a hypothetical debate to illustrate the above point:
- Atheist: The Bible covers all those things about stoning disobedient children right beside the part were it asks Christians to pay 10% Tithe.
- Theist: Try reading the New Testament. Christians believe that when Christ came, He changed everything. One example in Matthew: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” Christ’s NEW laws are the basis for Christianity. It’s Judaism that only follows the Old Testament.
- Atheist: Did you know that when Abraham Lincoln proposed to end slavery, he was opposed by priests who offered evidence from New Testament that endorses slavery? That language/interpretation was changed after Abolitionists won. So you see Bible ain’t as moral as some constitutions are.
- Theist: If that is true, those Priests were misguided. The New Testament refers to “servants.” But, it’s supposed to be understood that we are all servants of God. Besides, “servant” has a much different meaning than “slave.”