Instigator / Con
7
1614
rating
17
debates
85.29%
won
Topic
#1218
Should the Bible be used as a moral compass?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Pinkfreud08
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 15,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
4
1435
rating
15
debates
33.33%
won
Description
The goal of a moral system is to find a system which is logically consistent.
So for example, if my moral system defined intelligence as the valuable trait in humans, by logical extension any being with intelligence is also valuable.
However, consistency isn't the only thing we're looking for we also need a moral system that we agree with where we get consistent outcomes we like.
So back to that example it may be consistent however if intelligence is the trait than by logical extension, mentally challenged people also aren't valuable.
To summarize, a good moral system is consistent and doesn't lead to absurdity both of which the Bible lacks which will be elaborated on by me later.
Rules:
- Keep it civil
- This debate is going to assume that Gods version of morality is subjective and not objective morality
- We're going to be examining the Bibles morality, the Bible does have a place in a modern society in the form of studying for academic purposes. Similar to Hitlers books and killers manifestos.
- We're going to be examining whichever testament Pro deems to be Gods word. The rules for this is only the old and new testament are your choices. PM me whichever testament you're choosing to defend.
- BOP is on Con
Pretty simple debate topic, if I left any rules or definitions you feel I should have clarified I urge you to tell me so that I may clarify.
Round 1
Greetings I’d like to start off by thanking GuitarSlinger for accepting the debate and I’m happy to debate with you today.
Anyways this will be the structure I’ll follow throughout this debate for reference.
R1 - Opening Argument
R2 - Rebuttal # 1
R3 - Rebuttal # 2
R4 - Rebuttal # 3
R5- Closing
I’d like to advise my opponent to use this argument as well for organizational purposes however they are free to organize their rounds in whatever way they want.
Now that we’ve gotten this out of the way I’ll now begin my opening argument.
Table of contents for Round 1
Opening
I’d like to start off the opening by stating that I used to be a Christian when I was younger before I became an atheist in 7th grade. I come in telling people this to clarify that I was very reluctant to abandon my religion however I was ultimately persuaded by a mountain of evidence against the Bible's teachings once I actually sat down and actually did research on the Bible's repulsive nature.
That being said I do not think the Bible should be censored nor destroyed, the Bible was overall repulsive, should be used to study for academic purposes. However, I simply do not believe this book should be used for the purposes of a moral compass for its blatant sexism and its endorsement of slavery.
Also for voters, I and my opponent have agreed to use the New American Bible, Revised Edition. Also, my opponent has agreed that both testaments are at play for the debate just to clarify.
I’ll now begin my cross-examination of the Bible.
The Bibles blatant sexism
Sexism as defined by Webster,
- Opening
- The Bibles blatant sexism
- The Bible endorsing Slavery
- Closing
Definition of sexism
1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex
especially: discrimination against women
34 let the women keep silent in the churches: for it is not permitted to them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. 35 And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.
- This is a prime example of sexism since it’s under a prejudice that women are incapable of having a thoughtful opinion based on their sex.
Cleopatra, Elizabeth 1st, Frida Kahlo, Helen Keller, Mother Theresa, Rosa Parks, Oprah, and Elizabeth Blackwell to name a few.
Everywhere we see we can find strong and capable women, the Bible by ignoring women's opinions in the church isn’t making itself stronger, it’s making itself weaker by casting aside half of the population.
This isn’t the only verse that states this, in fact, another verse has a similar sexist quote from the new testament being 1 Timothy 2:12:
12 But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.
- Yet another example of similar sexism as demonstrated by the Bible.
The fact that the Bible endorses such as the destructive and inhumane way of thinking makes it a bad moral system to fall and not beneficial towards society.
Ignoring half of the population's talents isn’t beneficial to society and treating half of the population poorly is an example of a bigoted moral system and is destructive.
Now that we’ve established that the Bible is sexist, let’s discuss the Bibles endorsement of slavery.
The Bible endorsing Slavery
The Bible not only endorses slavery but even gives clear instructions towards slave masters funnily enough and no other verse than Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT.
44 And as for thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, whom thou shalt have; of the nations that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover, of the children of the strangers that sojourn among you, of them, shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they have begotten in your land: and they shall be your possession. 46 And ye shall make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession; of them shall ye take your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel ye shall not rule, one over another, with rigor.
This quote took a while to fully digest it, so here is a summary of this quote as for some this may appear as confusing. So here is an explanation from Salon.
You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. 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.
This demonstrates two things,
- The Bible encourages the purchase and ownership of slaves.
2. The Bible is hypocritical since it states that Israel is free from slavery, yet its neighbors aren’t which is very racist and hypocritical.
The fact that the Bible encourages the inhumane treatment of other human beings based off of a racist dogma is down right repulsive.
This type of bigoted moral system very plainly shouldn’t be used as a moral compass since the inhumane treatment is something me and my opponent will agree as being repulsive and we’ll also agree that racism is also disgusting.
Instead of perhaps keeping the captured enemies as prisoners, or finding a peaceful solution to the issue, the bible instead inhumanely keep them as slaves and then hypocritically orders that Israelians can be slaves.
Just horrible.
Closing
I’ve provided numerous examples of the Bibles blatant sexism, it’s hypocritical nature, and it’s repulsive endorsement of slavery.
These ideals are very much harmful to society as they’re inhumane ways of treating other people and are repulsive acts.
Therefore for these reasons, I deem the Bible as a prime example of a poorly constructed moral system due to these destructive ideals.
I will now await my opponent's response.
- Pink Freud.
Wow. Right off the bat you're starting off with a
falsehood lol. I kid, but there is some seriousness to what I say.
Apparently you're not agreeing to use the Bible I requested, but yet you go on to
tell everyone we agreed to use the same Bible. I stated I wanted
to use the New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE, which you mention in your R1 argument), and I gave you a link to said
version ( which could be found at http://www.usccb.org/bible/)
Instead you chose to go with another version-- the American Standard Version (ASV).
The version (ASV) you chose (and incorrectly state I agreed to use) is significantly different from the Bible I specified (NABRE): the ASV is missing a significant number of Books compared to the one I requested (NABRE). THe NABRE has the approval of the Holy See.
So, let the record show that PinkFreud (by the way, which one is "Pink"? ;-) ) asked that I specify which Bible to use. I did (NABRE) and He goes on to say we agree to the ASV Version. The NABRE and ASV differ significantly.
If you come to Scripture looking for something to criticize and isolate passages out of context, no doubt you will find something to be outraged about. One must take into account who wrote it and when. Alright, so on to the heart of the debate.
Sexism
While it’s attractive to pick and choose passages and view those independently of the rest of the Bible in order to promote a narrative, one must always consider context. One can’t ignore or refuse to acknowledge how high the Bible esteems women and their level of responsibility:
- The Story of Creation – as God creates, there is a certain level of “hierarchy” to his creation. He first starts the lowest levels (some would say least perfect) and keeps getting “better and better” so to speak. First the earth, then seas, then the animals, and then ultimately humans. The 2nd creation story also highlights the next level of creation—the creation of woman. So all of creation gets progressively advanced all the way up to the very last thing he creates—his crowning achievement….woman.
- The 2nd story of creation – underscores how woman is “necessary” for the goodness of man. Companionship. (See Genesis)
- One of the heroines of the OT is a woman (Judith). You’ll find this in the book of Judith. A book that happens to be absent from the version Pink wants to use. (See Judith)
- God chooses the Savior of the World to be born of a, you guessed it….woman. One of the important, dare I say heroic acts, in the Bible is when Mary agrees to become the Mother of God. Given a woman such mighty, awe-inspiring is hardly sexist in my opinion (see the Gospels)
- Jesus’ first appearance after his Resurrection was to a ….you guessed it, a woman. The greatest event in Human History, rising from the dead, is performed and he chooses to appear, not to a man, but first to a woman. And not only that, but he gives this woman a mighty responsibility of telling others. There is huge significance in that.
- Again, it’s tempting to take this Corinthian’s passage or Timothy passage and use that to build your case on, but one can’t ignore Ephesians. People often cite Ephesians 5 as another “sexist” passage with it’s “Wives be subordinate to your husbands” passage, and then gloss or choose to ignore the next line which states “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word.” Ask yourself—how did Christ love the Church? I’ll dare ask—who has the more difficulty/weighty task? The wife or the husband? Christ did everything perfectly. He suffered for the Church, allowed Himself to be humiliated, tortured, insulted, crucified for the sake of His Church. gave his life for the Church. Paul is commanding men (husbands) to be Christ for their Church (wives). Paul is telling wives to submit to their husbands, but he is also telling husbands to love as Christ loved. This gives a fuller picture of how Paul viewed the wife/husband relationship.
Slavery
Leviticus relates specific laws/rules for a specific time. If you examine a Middle School or High School text book, you’ll find passages about slavery in the U.S. Why? We must learn what our history is about. Does the fact that HS textbook talk about slavery mean that the current government condones slavery? Absolutely not.
My opponent cites Leviticus, which were specific rules for a specific time and a specific people. In order to properly view “slavery” one must take into account the totality of the Bible, context, how does this passage relate to what the rest of the Bible says, and more importantly what Jesus says. Also Pink is falling into the trap of equating the idea of “slavery” in the OT with our most recent use of slavery in the U.S. Slavery was viewed differently in the OT. “Slave” and “servant” were often used interchangeably as denoted by the use of the word “ebed” – they used to use overlap in meaning, not so much these days. A “Servant” is not inherently negative, but relates to work.
The Pharisees asked Jesus why did Moses permit the Jews to do certain things and Jesus responds “out of the hardness of their heart, but in the beginning it was not so”.
In short, regarding slavery, I have to ask my opponent—how were slaves treated in the OT? What were the rules/laws regarding the treatment of slaves?
Be careful not to take things out of context. MLK’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” has the following passage “We can never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal”. Someone, taken the passage out of context, might use to state that MLK condoned the holocaust and all the other atrocities because he calls what they did “legal”. But when you take it out of context like that, you miss the point of what the author MLK was really trying to state.
Instead you chose to go with another version-- the American Standard Version (ASV).
The version (ASV) you chose (and incorrectly state I agreed to use) is significantly different from the Bible I specified (NABRE): the ASV is missing a significant number of Books compared to the one I requested (NABRE). THe NABRE has the approval of the Holy See.
So, let the record show that PinkFreud (by the way, which one is "Pink"? ;-) ) asked that I specify which Bible to use. I did (NABRE) and He goes on to say we agree to the ASV Version. The NABRE and ASV differ significantly.
If you come to Scripture looking for something to criticize and isolate passages out of context, no doubt you will find something to be outraged about. One must take into account who wrote it and when. Alright, so on to the heart of the debate.
Sexism
While it’s attractive to pick and choose passages and view those independently of the rest of the Bible in order to promote a narrative, one must always consider context. One can’t ignore or refuse to acknowledge how high the Bible esteems women and their level of responsibility:
- The Story of Creation – as God creates, there is a certain level of “hierarchy” to his creation. He first starts the lowest levels (some would say least perfect) and keeps getting “better and better” so to speak. First the earth, then seas, then the animals, and then ultimately humans. The 2nd creation story also highlights the next level of creation—the creation of woman. So all of creation gets progressively advanced all the way up to the very last thing he creates—his crowning achievement….woman.
- The 2nd story of creation – underscores how woman is “necessary” for the goodness of man. Companionship. (See Genesis)
- One of the heroines of the OT is a woman (Judith). You’ll find this in the book of Judith. A book that happens to be absent from the version Pink wants to use. (See Judith)
- God chooses the Savior of the World to be born of a, you guessed it….woman. One of the important, dare I say heroic acts, in the Bible is when Mary agrees to become the Mother of God. Given a woman such mighty, awe-inspiring is hardly sexist in my opinion (see the Gospels)
- Jesus’ first appearance after his Resurrection was to a ….you guessed it, a woman. The greatest event in Human History, rising from the dead, is performed and he chooses to appear, not to a man, but first to a woman. And not only that, but he gives this woman a mighty responsibility of telling others. There is huge significance in that.
- Again, it’s tempting to take this Corinthian’s passage or Timothy passage and use that to build your case on, but one can’t ignore Ephesians. People often cite Ephesians 5 as another “sexist” passage with it’s “Wives be subordinate to your husbands” passage, and then gloss or choose to ignore the next line which states “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word.” Ask yourself—how did Christ love the Church? I’ll dare ask—who has the more difficulty/weighty task? The wife or the husband? Christ did everything perfectly. He suffered for the Church, allowed Himself to be humiliated, tortured, insulted, crucified for the sake of His Church. gave his life for the Church. Paul is commanding men (husbands) to be Christ for their Church (wives). Paul is telling wives to submit to their husbands, but he is also telling husbands to love as Christ loved. This gives a fuller picture of how Paul viewed the wife/husband relationship.
Slavery
Leviticus relates specific laws/rules for a specific time. If you examine a Middle School or High School text book, you’ll find passages about slavery in the U.S. Why? We must learn what our history is about. Does the fact that HS textbook talk about slavery mean that the current government condones slavery? Absolutely not.
My opponent cites Leviticus, which were specific rules for a specific time and a specific people. In order to properly view “slavery” one must take into account the totality of the Bible, context, how does this passage relate to what the rest of the Bible says, and more importantly what Jesus says. Also Pink is falling into the trap of equating the idea of “slavery” in the OT with our most recent use of slavery in the U.S. Slavery was viewed differently in the OT. “Slave” and “servant” were often used interchangeably as denoted by the use of the word “ebed” – they used to use overlap in meaning, not so much these days. A “Servant” is not inherently negative, but relates to work.
The Pharisees asked Jesus why did Moses permit the Jews to do certain things and Jesus responds “out of the hardness of their heart, but in the beginning it was not so”.
In short, regarding slavery, I have to ask my opponent—how were slaves treated in the OT? What were the rules/laws regarding the treatment of slaves?
Be careful not to take things out of context. MLK’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” has the following passage “We can never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal”. Someone, taken the passage out of context, might use to state that MLK condoned the holocaust and all the other atrocities because he calls what they did “legal”. But when you take it out of context like that, you miss the point of what the author MLK was really trying to state.
Round 2
A special thanks to Guitar Slinger for the response!
Intro:
I’d like to start off by apologizing to the voters and my opponent for accidentally using the wrong source. Me and my opponent discussed which version, they sent me one, I looked it up and found the source I used previously, however, I’d like to mention that I messaged my opponent beforehand confirming this indeed was the correct version.
After 12 or so hours they didn’t respond and at that point, I was pressed on time so I continued anyway. Regardless I take responsibility for this mistake.
For the following rounds, I’ll be using this source.
However, I'd like to mention that this is almost irrelevant as the quotes I cited still appear in this version and this version only has a few differences my opponent mentioned such as a few new characters and books.
For reference and clarification, here are the quotes I used from the previous round which are repeated in this version.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35:
New source
1 Timothy 2:12:
New source
Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT
New source
Note: The wording slightly changes and is fitted more for modern English however essentially remains the same. The Bible in this quote still endorses owning slaves.
Ultimately this doesn’t change the overall point of my previous round and my arguments remain the same. Now onto my rebuttals.
Sexism:
- The Story of Creation – as God creates, there is a certain level of “hierarchy” to his creation. He first starts the lowest levels (some would say least perfect) and keeps getting “better and better” so to speak. First the earth, then seas, then the animals, and then ultimately humans. The 2nd creation story also highlights the next level of creation—the creation of woman. So all of the creation gets progressively advanced all the way up to the very last thing he creates—his crowning achievement….woman.
- No source nor citation is given for me nor the voter to check. Because of this, I am unable to accept this as legitimate and I ask my opponent to cite their source of this in the next round.
- Assuming this is correct and this is legitimate, this still doesn’t ignore the underlining fact that in this case, the Bible is inconsistent.
The goal of a moral system is to find a system which is logically consistent.
- The 2nd story of creation – underscores how a woman is “necessary” for the goodness of man. Companionship. (See Genesis)
- God chooses the Savior of the World to be born of a, you guessed it….woman. One of the important, dare I say heroic acts, in the Bible, is when Mary agrees to become the Mother of God. Given a woman, such mighty, awe-inspiring is hardly sexist in my opinion (see the Gospels)
- Jesus’ first appearance after his Resurrection was to a ….you guessed it, a woman. The greatest event in Human History, rising from the dead, is performed and he chooses to appear, not to a man, but first to a woman. And not only that, but he gives this woman a mighty responsibility of telling others. There is a huge significance in that.
- No citation
- Still doesn’t excuse the inconsistency
- Again, it’s tempting to take this Corinthians passage or Timothy passage and use that to build your case, but one can’t ignore Ephesians. People often cite Ephesians 5 as another “sexist” passage with it’s “Wives be subordinate to your husbands” passage, and then gloss or choose to ignore the next line which states “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word.”
- This doesn’t excuse the fact that the Bible is still calling wives inferior to their male counterparts.
Leviticus relates specific laws/rules for a specific time. If you examine a Middle School or High School textbook, you’ll find passages about slavery in the U.S. Why? We must learn what our history is about.
44 The male and female slaves that you possess—these you shall acquire from the nations round about you. 45You may also acquire them from among the resident aliens who reside with you, and from their families who are with you, those whom they bore in your land. These you may possess, 46 and bequeath to your children as their hereditary possession forever.
Also Pink is falling into the trap of equating the idea of “slavery” in the OT with our most recent use of slavery in the U.S. Slavery was viewed differently in the OT. “Slave” and “servant” were often used interchangeably as denoted by the use of the word “embed” – they used to use an overlap in meaning, not so much these days. A “Servant” is not inherently negative but relates to work.
- No citation is given to back this up.
- In the quote I just previously gave, you’ll notice the bolded sections which give a clear indication that slaves at that time were the owner's possessions and owned forever. More often than not slaves of war.
- I’ve demonstrated the Bible is still inconsistent with its messages.
- I’ve also given a rebuttal to several of my opponent's arguments IE opponents claims on OT slavery being different to modern slavery.
- My opponent has made it harder by not offering clear sources to check.
I. I will be providing the citations in this
Response. In my initial
comments/messages to my opponent. I specifically provided a link to the Bible
version I was using. Not sure how much
clearer I could have been, and in my opinion the additional questions about the
version (which I wasn’t able to answer in time) were not necessary. I will show my opponent is not rejecting the Bible because it is inconsistent, but rather because it's "more inconsistent" then other inconsistent Moral Systems.
II.The Bible version is relevant. One of the examples I gave involved the
heroine Judith, from the Book of Judith, which is absent
from his version. There
are other books missing from the version my opponent cited.
III. Let the record show that my opponent and I
have been engaging in a very friendly discussion related to this particular
debate (see comments). As part of this
response, I plan on citing my opponents own words as a source, since it gives insight into my opponents ideas on what "consistent" / "inconsistent" mean and how to determine it.
IV. The Debate description centers on what
constitutes a good moral system. Per the description, a good Moral System is one that:
A. Is
consistent
B. Has
consistent outcomes we like
Therefore, he argues, the Bible should
not be used as a Moral Compass.
V. I’ll address point IV.B first (“has consistent
outcomes we like”). My opponent’s idea
of what constitutes a “good moral system” should give us all pause. Anything that is predicated upon “something
we like” is an open invitation to subjectivity and inconsistency. What we like today may change and may not be
what we like tomorrow. What we deem
Moral (Good, Right, Just) today we may deem Immoral (Bad, Wrong, Unjust)
tomorrow, depending on the prevailing winds of the day (social sentiment, “progress”,
popular vote, or dare I say “whoever happens to be in power”). Perhaps
the reason the Bible is being discarded is not because it’s inconsistent, but
rather it doesn’t have “outcomes we like”?
VI. My
opponent is arguing NOT that the Bible is inconsistent with itself, but rather
it is inconsistent with “something else”. He claims the bible is inconsistent, but doesn’t say inconsistent
with what. “Consistent” is a term of
comparison—when properly used, it is used to describe something, either over
time or different occurrences/instances. If Michael Jordan shoots just one free throw, it would be foolish to say
he was “consistent” (or “inconsistent”) in his free throws. But if he shoots 100 free-throws, you can
then comment on his consistency. Or,
alternatively, with the 1 free throw you could comment on his consistency (or
inconsistency) relative to other free-throw shooters. So the question right off the bat becomes,
when you are talking about the Bible’s “consistency” (or “inconsistency”), it
is in comparison to what? There are two options
here: you are speaking of its consistency
(or inconsistency) either (a) relative to itself or (b) relative to something
else. So when my opponent proclaims “The
Bible is inconsistent!” He should
immediately state with what (I.e. “The Bible is inconsistent with ________” or
he should be asked “What is it inconsistent with?” I’ll admit, when I first entered this debate,
I thought my opponent would argue that the Bible is inconsistent with itself. Let’s examine these two possibilities: “Inconsistent with itself” or “Inconsistent
with something else.”
A.Itself
–
i. Sexism - my opponent provides no evidence that the Bible is inconsistent with itself when
it comes to Sexism. In fact he does the
opposite. All he is doing is
highlighting instances (two) he claims are “sexist”. He doesn’t outright state what or where the inconsistency is. In fact, by showing two instances of the same
thing, he is actually making the case
that it IS CONSISTENT with itself. Of
course, I provided several more instances where it’s not Sexist, but we’ll get
to that later.
ii. Slavery – again, my opponent provides no evidence that the Bible is inconsistent with
itself when it comes to Slavery. He only
provides one reference (Leviticus), and as we saw above, one can’t use speak of
something’s consistency (or inconsistency) to itself if there is only instance.
B. Something Else. If my opponent is not arguing it’s
inconsistency with “itself”, then he must be arguing it’s inconsistency against
“something else”. This “Something Else”
is Society’s view of Women and Slavery, or simply put, Societal Norms and
Values. This is in alignment with what he says his Moral System is : the benefit to society and if it produces results he is alignment with.
i. Sexism – he compares the Bible vs Society’s history
and cites key women throughout history.
ii. Slavery – he compares the Bible vs Society’s
current view of Slavery (not all of Society, just current, prevailing laws for
some members of Society).
VII. So clearly, my opponent is arguing that the
Bible is inconsistent, not with itself, but with something else, namely Society’s
current norms and values. This basically makes Society’s norms the yardstick
(standard, Moral System) upon which my opponent measures Morality (the
goodness/badness of something).
XIII.
A. Via
Comments, my opponent made the following comment “Firstly, really you found a moral system that
is 100 % consistent, that holds up in ANY scenario, ok share it with me”. This implies that he
believes all Moral Systems are to some degree “inconsistent” – I read this to
believe that he doesn’t think there exists a Moral System that is 100%
consistent.
B. I
asked for his definition of “consistent”. He provided one, which I didn’t agree with because he used the word “consistent”
when defining “consistent”. But my
opponent made the statement “Obviously there is no known 100 % morally consistent system
that doesn't lead to absurditiy in some way.” He implies that “inconsistency”
depends on either QUANTITY (Majority of inconsistencies) and/or Severity (HUGE
inconsistency) as he puts it. So a Moral
System can be considered “inconsistent”, in his opinion, if it:
i. Has a majority of inconsistencies (QUANTITY),
this is somewhat objective or
ii.Has a HUGE inconsistency. As he puts it, one inconsistency won’t make
or break a system unless it’s a HUGE one (SEVERITY). This is very subjective.
This implies that he
believes any 100% Consistent Moral system will lead to absurdity in some way.
C. My opponent then changes his position. He states “Moral systems can be 100 % consistent but they
generally lead to absurdity.”
IX. So, first he implies there is no known moral
system that is 100% consistent (XIII.A above). Then he says there is no known 100% morally consistent system that doesn’t
lead to absurdity in anyway (XIII.B above) (implying always lead to absurdity). Then he immediately changes and states Moral systems can be 100%
consistent but they “generally” lead to absurdity (XIII.C above). Notice the use of “generally”, implying "not always lead to absurdity". He goes from
“No known 100% consistent moral systems exist” to “100% consistent moral systems
can exist, but they lead to absurdity” to “100% moral systems can exist, but
generally (not all the time, but sometimes?) lead to absurdity”
X. What prompted the changes in his beliefs on 100%
Consistent Moral Systems? When he made
the comment implying there doesn’t exist a 100% Consistent Moral System (see XIII.A above), I said this implies that all Moral systems are to some degree “inconsistent”
(otherwise they’d be 100% consistent, which he implied isn’t possible or doesn’t
exist). So he is basically swapping one
inconsistent Moral System with another inconsistent Moral System. But If he truly was discarding the Bible “because
it’s inconsistent”, he should be rejecting his current Moral System, because it
too is inconsistent (remember he implied no 100% moral system exists). So he’s not rejecting the Bible because it’s
inconsistent (otherwise he’d be rejecting his own Moral System because it too
is inconsistent per his comments’ implications), but rather he is rejecting it
because his current moral system is “less inconsistent” then the Bible (in his opinion)
The notion of rejecting the
Bible because it’s inconsistent conflicted with his comments, and thus the
Debate (Reject the Bible because it’s Inconsistent) made no sense, so he had to
change his idea of “Consistent Moral Systems” again….and again.
So, regarding
100% Consistent Moral Systems, he goes from “None exist” to “They exist,
but they lead to absurdity” (implying always lead to absurdity) to “They exist, but they generally lead to absurdity” (not always lead to absurdity) to “I HAVE ONE!”
Which begs the question,
does his Moral System lead to absurdity? After all, at one point he did say “Obviously there is no known 100 % morally consistent system
that doesn't lead to absurditiy in some way.” (citation is above). I know his moral system
wasn’t the topic of debate, so I won’t dwell on his moral system. But all this does yield some insight into
what/how he considers a Moral System to be “inconsistent” vs “consistent”.
If my
opponent has such a changing, dare I say “inconsistent”, idea of Consistent
Moral Systems, how can he make the claim one should be discarded because it’s “inconsistent’
and thus not worthy to be used as a “moral compass”?
XI. Now, he did provide further clarifications on “inconsistency”, there were two: Quantity and Severity (see above in XIII.B).
A. Quantity
(Majority) - he implied the Quantity (Majority) of instances would deem a Moral
System inconsistent. In other words, if
the quantity of inconsistencies outnumber the number of consistencies, then one
could call the Moral System Inconsistent, or conversely if the # of
consistencies outnumber the # of inconsistencies, one could call it “consistent”.
B. Severity - But he also implied quantity may
not matter. That if there was just one
inconsistency, a “huge one” as he put it, it could render the Moral System “inconsistent”. Personally, I like to use the word “doozy”,
cuz it’s more fun. If that one
inconsistency was a doozy, then that Moral System could be considered “inconsistent”. This is what I refer to as “Severity”.
XII. My negation of his examples:
A. When
it comes to quantity, my opponent only provided 2 examples of how the Bible
treats women. He implies the Bible is
inconsistent with Societal Norms based on those two examples. I, however, provide 6 examples of how the
Bible esteems women. When I last
checked, 6 is greater than 2.
B. When
it comes to “Severity”, I will focus on “Slavery”. My opponent provides just one instance from
Scripture on Slavery, and claims this is an “endorsement of slavery”. And since there is but one example cited, I’m
inclined to think my opponent perceives this as a “huge one”….the “doozy” I
referred to earlier. My response:
i. The Great Commandment - Jesus
tell his disciples to love one another. But not just to love one another, but to love one another as He loves
them. And this is how all will know they
are His disciples. He tells them to treat each other as He treated them. (John
13:34-35)
ii. Jesus tells his disciples
He doesn’t regard them as slaves, He calls them friends (John 15:15)
iiiJesus also commands his
disciples to make disciples of all people (The Great Commission) (Matthew
28:180-20)
So he is basically telling
his followers: (a) make everyone disciples
and (b) all His disciples are to love one another as He loved them and regard
the disciples (i.e. everyone) as friends not slaves.
This doesn’t sounds like a
ringing endorsement for slavery. While
my opponent may regard his Leviticus reference as huge (a doozy), I see mine as
huge as well (a doozy…in fact, I see mine as a huger doozy ;-) ).
With regard to quantity, I
have more instances of Consistency then my opponent provided in terms inconsistencies.
With regard to severity, at
a minimum, my opponent and I are at a stalemate when it comes to Slavery. He
provides a doozy, I too provide a doozy.
XIII. Citations
left off of first response in R1:
Story of Creation – Genesis 1:1 –
2:21
2nd story of Creation –
Genesis 2:1-21
The Heroine Judith (The book of
Judith in the OT)
Savior of the world is born of a
woman – Matthew Chapter 1, Luke Chapters 1-2
Jesus first appearance was to a
woman (women) – Mark 16:9, Matthew 28:8-10,
XIV. Conclusion
A. In
the Debate Description and in arguments, my opponent did not define or
elaborate on what “Inconsistent” (or “Consistent”) meant when it comes to Moral
Systems (how does one determine something is consistent or not). In comments, he struggled to define or
elaborate what “Inconsistent” means when it comes to a Moral System. Changing his viewpoint multiple times when it
came to a “Consistent Moral System”. This
calls into question whether or not he can definitively say any particular Moral
System is “consistent” or “inconsistent”.
B. In
his arguments, he argued that the bible is inconsistent with Societal Norms.,
not that it’s inconsistent with itself. However, if
you compare any Moral System, including my Opponent's Moral System, vs Societal Norms, on any given day that Moral
System could inconsistent, depending on the norms of the day.
C. I
provided more examples (six) of how the Bible is consistent with Societal Norms
(he provided 2), thereby fulfilling his “Majority” requirement he stated in
comments.
D. He
provided a “doozy” with regard to Slavery (Leviticus). I provided a doozy with regard to cancelling
out slavery (Jesus’ Great Commandments and Commission). On the surface, a stalemate.
Round 3
Hello everyone, welcome to round 3. I’d like to thank my opponent for the response! With that said let’s delve in!
Consistency argument:
Clearing things up:
“ In my initial comments/messages to my opponent. I specifically provided a link to the Bible version I was using. Not sure how much clearer I could have been, and in my opinion, the additional questions about the version (which I wasn’t able to answer in time) were not necessary.” - The bible version you linked had a very strange layout. For example, it didn’t have a search option which made it more annoying for me since I have a master list of all the Bible passages I could use and like to look it up as opposed to shifting between menu’s numerous times.
- The question I asked was necessary, I asked if this version was the correct version I could use. I fail to see how this was unnecessary.
“ II.The Bible version is relevant. One of the examples I gave involved the heroine Judith, from the Book of Judith, which is absent from his version. There are other books missing from the version my opponent cited.”
- The reason why I cited that the Bible version, in this case, isn’t relevant was that the passages I was quoting still exist in the revised version. Even if there is an addition of this new female character, it still doesn’t excuse the inconsistency and is almost irrelevant to the point I was making.
“ III. Let the record show that my opponent and I have been engaging in a very friendly discussion related to this particular debate (see comments). As part of this response, I plan on citing my opponents own words as a source since it gives insight into my opponent's ideas on what "consistent" / "inconsistent" means and how to determine it.”
- For the voter reading this I’ll highlight what I defined as consistent and inconsistent just so you don’t have to sift through 20 comments.
“ I'll admit, I've worded this a bit weirdly so let me explain how this works.Moral systems can be 100 % consistent but they generally lead to absurdity.For instance, I can say my moral system is that any living organism must die, well this moral system is consistent however can be rather absurd.Moral systems can be consistent, it's dependent on the person.For instance, if you're a psychopath and an idiot, that moral system would work since it's consistent and in your mind, doesn't lead to absurdity.Obviously, for the vast majority of people, this moral system doesn't work.Most moral systems and the people who abide by them are sometimes inconsistent.In the case of the Bible, the system itself is inconsistent and the inconsistency isn't dependent on the person thus making it overall inconsistent.I hope this clarifies that moral systems can be consistent, it's mostly dependent on the person.”
Note: I cut out one portion of the comment towards the end as it’s irrelevant to this debate. For reference, the comment number is # 23 in which I clearly outline what I mean by consistent and inconsistent. Since this point is essentially vital to my opponents R3 argument, I’d ask that voters please read this comment. Thank you.
“ V. I’ll address point IV.B first (“has consistent outcomes we like”). My opponent’s idea of what constitutes a “good moral system” should give us all pause. Anything that is predicated upon “something we like” is an open invitation to subjectivity and inconsistency. Perhaps the reason the Bible is being discarded is not that it’s inconsistent, but rather it doesn’t have “outcomes we like”?
Note: I cut out some fluff in the middle portion to save character space as it was mostly a clarification on the point.
- Morality is inherently subjective. I want to debate whether or not the morality seen in the Bible is moral by both of our standards and if any disagreements occur than we can debate the morality of it.
- Secondly no, when I call the Bible inconsistent, I mean it’s logically inconsistent with itself. I clearly outlined this in the description and in the comment I made. For reference here are the portions of the description in which I clarify that I mean logically inconsistent and in the comment where I clarify that when I call the Bible inconsistent I mean it’s inconsistent with itself.
“ The goal of a moral system is to find a system which is logically consistent.”
Comment:
“ In the case of the Bible, the system itself is inconsistent and the inconsistency isn't dependent on the person”
In these two comments I’ve made, I have clearly outlined to my opponent that when I mean by consistent I mean by logically consistent and when I call the Bible inconsistent I call it inconsistent with itself.
“ VI. My opponent is arguing NOT that the Bible is inconsistent with itself, but rather it is inconsistent with “something else”.
i. Sexism - my opponent provides no evidence that the Bible is inconsistent with itself when it comes to Sexism. In fact, he does the opposite. All he is doing is highlighting instances (two) he claims are “sexist”. He doesn’t outright state what or where the inconsistency is. In fact, by showing two instances of the same thing, he is actually making the case that it IS CONSISTENT with itself. Of course, I provided several more instances where it’s not Sexist, but we’ll get to that later.
My opponent claims I never proved it was inconsistent by providing two sexist Bible verses but then answers his own question by exclaiming that he provided several instances where it isn’t sexist.
This is an obvious contradiction within the Bible as highlighted by my opponent.
If in several quotes I mentioned the Bible exclaims a great deal of sexism and then in my opponents quote it doesn’t, that is an inconsistency by definition. - Secondly, I did state where the inconsistency was in this quote from the previous round.
“ If the Bible has quotes such as 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: and 1 Timothy 2:12: which demonstrate the Bibles sexism, but then ( possibly ) demonstrates it’s love for women, this proves it’s inconsistent and unclear what the Bible's stance is. “
And I also clarified in another quote later on,
“ This proves that the Bible is very inconsistent when there are passages that demonstrate it’s sexist and nonsexist at the same time.”
I clearly outlined where the inconsistency was as demonstrated by these two quotes.
“ ii. Slavery – again, my opponent provides no evidence that the Bible is inconsistent with itself when it comes to Slavery. He only provides one reference (Leviticus), and as we saw above, one can’t use speak of something’s consistency (or inconsistency) to itself if there is only instance.”
- I never stated the Slavery stance in the Bible is inconsistent, the inconsistent portion I was referring to was the sexism portion. Therefore this argument is irrelevant since I never made such claims.
- Overall this slavery point essentially goes undisputed by my opponent and it still stands.
“ B. Something Else. If my opponent is not arguing it’s inconsistency with “itself”, then he must be arguing it’s inconsistency against “something else”. This “Something Else” is Society’s view of Women and Slavery, or simply put, Societal Norms and Values. This is in alignment with what he says his Moral System is : the benefit to society and if it produces results he is alignment with. “
- Already clarified in the Debate description and my clarification comment on what I was referring to when I mentioned the Bibles inconsistency.
- Secondly, I clearly stated in the comments that I don’t appeal to societal norms and values and any time our values align is a coincidence.
- Thirdly my personal views are almost irrelevant to the discussion and have no place here. Since it appears my opponent agrees that the Bible’s quotes I’ve mentioned are indeed sexist and racist, my personal views are irrelevant.
i. Sexism – he compares the Bible vs Society’s history and cites key women throughout history.
ii. Slavery – he compares the Bible vs Society’s current view of Slavery (not all of Society, just current, prevailing laws for some members of Society).
- Firstly I compared the Bible vs. society’s history with women not to show an inconsistency but to show the Bibles blatant sexism by casting women aside when they have indeed achieved a great deal throughout history.
- Secondly, you’re the one who brought up modern slavery point in the first place. I was simply clarifying that when the Bible references slavery, it’s referring to actual modern slavery. Since you were making the claim of the references not pertaining to modern slavery as your argument.
XIII.
A. Via Comments, my opponent made the following comment “Firstly, really you found a moral system that is 100 % consistent, that holds up in ANY scenario, ok share it with me”.
- I clarified in my clarification comment that from in the very beginning in which I clarify that I’ve worded everything weirdly and I’ll use this comment for clarification purposes. Therefore my previous comments shouldn’t be taken seriously as I’ve already stated that they weren’t accurate. Because of this, XIII should be cast aside since it’s built upon a comment I’ve admitted wasn’t accurate.
“ But If he truly was discarding the Bible “because it’s inconsistent”, he should be rejecting his current Moral System, because it too is inconsistent (remember he implied no 100% moral system exists). So he’s not rejecting the Bible because it’s inconsistent (otherwise he’d be rejecting his own Moral System because it too is inconsistent per his comments’ implications), but rather he is rejecting it because his current moral system is “less inconsistent” then the Bible (in his opinion)”
- Firstly, my personal moral system is irrelevant.
- Secondly, like the previous comment I’ve made, this is built upon the falsehood of an inaccurate comment I’ve made.
- Thirdly, I've already outlined in the description and in my clarification comment what I meant by consistent. There’s a reason why I clearly stated that the Bible is inconsistent with itself.
“ He then stated this gem: “My moral system is 100 % consistent in and of itself. “
Which begs the question, does his Moral System lead to absurdity? After all, at one point he did say “Obviously there is no known 100 % morally consistent system that doesn't lead to absurdity in some way.” (citation is above).
- Firstly again, my moral system is irrelevant.
- Secondly again I’ve already clarified in the description and in my clarification comment on what I was referring to by inconsistent.
“ If my opponent has such a changing, dare I say “inconsistent”, idea of Consistent Moral Systems, how can he make the claim one should be discarded because it’s “inconsistent’ and thus not worthy to be used as a “moral compass”?”
- Firstly it isn’t inconsistent since I made a clear clarification comment.
- Secondly, I disregard the Bible in this context because it’s inconsistent with itself which I clearly outlined in my clarification comment.
XI.
This entire part is irrelevant since the clarification comment and the description of the debate defined what I meant by consistent and inconsistent.
“ XII. My negation of his examples:
A. When it comes to quantity, my opponent only provided 2 examples of how the Bible treats women. I, however, provide 6 examples of how the Bible esteems women. When I last checked, 6 is greater than 2. “
- Firstly this is built upon the falsehood of the previous comments I’ve made and not the clarification comment where I clearly outline what I mean by consistency.
- Secondly, this still doesn’t disprove the Bible’s inconsistency.
“ B. When it comes to “Severity”, I will focus on “Slavery”. My opponent provides just one instance from Scripture on Slavery, and claims this is an “endorsement of slavery”. And since there is but one example cited, I’m inclined to think my opponent perceives this as a “huge one”….the “doozy” I referred to earlier. My response:
- Never stated the Bible’s views on slavery was inconsistent. And again this also is built upon the falsehood of previous disregarded comments I’ve made and not my clarification comment.
“ While my opponent may regard his Leviticus reference as huge (a doozy), I see mine as huge as well (a doozy…in fact, I see mine as a huger doozy ;-) ).”
- Firstly the wink seems a bit condescending and I’d ask my opponent to refrain from using it and have better debate conduct. Granted I’m not offended however I would like for voters to consider my opponent's condescending winks he’s making.
- Secondly, I changed my mind, from the quotes you’ve demonstrated the Bible is actually inconsistent with its stance on slavery.
Thirdly, this is once again built upon a falsehood.
“ A. In the Debate Description and in arguments, my opponent did not define or elaborate on what “Inconsistent” (or “Consistent”) meant when it comes to Moral Systems (how does one determine something is consistent or not). This calls into question whether or not he can definitively say any particular Moral System is “consistent” or “inconsistent”.”
Debate Description:
“ The goal of a moral system is to find a system which is logically consistent.”
Clarification Comment:
“ In the case of the Bible, the system itself is inconsistent”
- I’ve clearly defined what I mean by consistency being logical consistency and in my clarification comment, I elaborated that the Bible itself is inconsistent.
Note: I am unable to provide a proper conclusion and bring in new arguments due to character limit and had to cut out a few redundant falsehood arguments to save space. My apologies.
That being said I may or may not bring them up later
“Joe never said Steve stole the money”
Very simple sentence, right? Pretty straight-forward, right? Just 7 words: “Joe never said
Steve stole the money.”
Imagine you discover paper, or a stone, a piece of papyrus,
or a scroll that has these 7 words written on it. How would you interpret?
Interpretation #1 – If you
emphasize the word “Joe”, the interpretation is that Joe is defending himself,
saying it wasn’t him who said Steve stole the money, that it was someone else
who said it.
Interpretation #2 – If you
emphasize the word “said”, the interpretation is that the Joe didn’t verbally
say Steve stole the money, but perhaps he wrote it down or hinted at it in some
other way.
Interpretation #3 – If you
emphasize the word “Steve”, the interpretation is that the Joe isn’t saying
STEVE stole the money, but is implying someone else stole the money.
Interpretation #4 – If you
emphasize the word “stole”, the interpretation is that Joe isn’t saying Steve STOLE the money, but
perhaps Steve did something else—gave it to charity, put in safe-keeping, etc.
Interpretation #5 – If you
emphasize the word “money”, the interpretation is that Joe isn’t saying Steve
stole the MONEY, but rather Steve stole something else—maybe Steve stole
livestock, a car, the heart of another woman.
This one simple 7 word sentence has at least 5 different
interpretations. If this one small sentence
can have multiple meanings/interpretations, imagine what could happen with a
collection of books—a collection that has over 60 books, each book containing
several chapters, multiple themes, multiple literary techniques, multiple styles
and literary forms etc.
The purpose of words, either spoken, written or printed is
to convey ideas, concepts, and thoughts. Whose ideas—the ideas of the reader/hearer? No, the purpose/intent of words is to convey
the ideas, thoughts, and concepts of the person, the author, who spoke the
words, wrote the words, or written the words. When one proclaims “This writing
endorses slavery!”, you are basically saying the author is saying “slavery is
ok.”—you are starting what you believe what the author intends. Which begs the question, is the correct
interpretation?
Now, what if there were additional texts (papers, stones,
papyrus, or scrolls) that had additional texts that could perhaps shed light on
what the meaning/purpose is for that one 7-word sentence. If you truly wanted to know and understand
the intent/purpose of those 7 words, do you think it would be wise to ignore
what the other texts happen to say on the matter?
-
Perhaps there are other texts that indicate that those 7 words were actually
part of script for a play that has two characters, Steve and Joe.
- Perhaps there are other texts
that indicate that those 7 words were actually part of a silly child’s game
played between a Father (Joe) and Son (Steve).
The possibilities are endless. It would be foolish to assume that the only
correct interpretation is the 1st one, and ignore what other texts,
works, authors have to say on the matter.
From the moment we learn to read, we start to learn how we
are to interpret what we read. In other
words, we learn to start to take into account things like context, who wrote
it, why/when did they write it, what is its purpose, etc. When we first started reading Aesop’s Fables
as children, we learned very early that the story of the Ant and the
Grasshopper wasn’t meant to be taken literally. “But Mommy, I don’t believe that story because it has a talking Ant and
a talking Grasshopper. Everybody knows
insects can’t talk!” “But son, the whole
point of the story is to convey a moral, a message about hard work and
preparation. The author just uses
talking Ants and Grasshoppers to help communicate this message. See…Mr. Aesop has other stories as well that
are written the same way.”
When you ignore things like context, the intent of the
author, timeframe it was written, the type of literature, etc you run the risk
of not interpreting it correctly.
I know my opponent believes this. I know my opponent believes that texts have specific
ways that they need to be read and interpreted. How do I know this? When I
referenced his comments he was very quick to point out my errors in how his
comments were taken or construed, basically implying “That’s not what I meant when
I wrote those comments. You’re
interpreting them incorrectly.” He also, in Round 2, makes the implication that
I am interpreting Leviticus wrong (i.e. like a textbook) and it is not to be
interpreted that way. SO this implies he
knows or believes there is a proper way to interpret texts. In addition, in Round 3 he states “Essentially
this is a falsehood and takes the arguments out of context. “ Wow. All of sudden context is
important to him—he says this as if it matters what the author (him) of the
text (his comments) meant when he wrote it. But when it comes to something like the Bible, he ignores context…..
My opponent seems to ignore all that when it comes to the
Bible. He takes one passage, be it from
Leviticus, Corinthians or Timothy and proclaims “This is what the Bible teaches
or condones” based on those passages. He
ignores what the rest of the Bible, nay, the rest of those specific texts have
to say.
Am I saying he’s wrong in his interpretation? Yes. Why? Because he’s ignoring what the
rest of Leviticus and the rest of the
Bible state and what the authors (or those who compiled the Bible) intended or
wrote elsewhere.
1. I’ve
provided what other passages, in particular the NT, mention in how we are to
treat others.
2.The canon of the Bible was compiled (put
together) by Christians (followers of Jesus Christ). It would be foolish to
ignore what they say and what Jesus, their leader, state in other places of
that same book—The Bible.
I’m also challenging
him in how does he really know his is the correct interpretation?
Slavery
1. My opponent takes one passage from Leviticus and
uses that as his foundation for proclaiming that the Bible endorses slavery. That’s akin to taking one line from Aesop’s
fables and proclaiming “Aesop believes animals can talk so we should ignore his
teachings!” Or akin to taking Orwell’s “Animal
Farm” and proclaiming “Orwell believes animals can talk and form
governments! This is preposterous we
should discard what he says!” When you
do this, you are missing the main point of “Aesop’s Fables”, “Animal Farm” or
the Bible.
What is the purpose of the talking
animals in Aesop’s fables or Orwell’s Animal Farm? Is it to promote the idea that Animals can
talk and form governments? Of course not. What is the purpose of the Leviticus
passage? Is it to promote Slavery and
inculcate slavery as permissible for all of time? No. How do we know this? Based on
what the Bible, specifically Jesus, who’s followers compiled the Bible, says
elsewhere on how we are treat people.
2. My
opponent can’t seem to decide exactly
what he’s arguing when it comes to Slavery:
a. In the Debate description, he states that the
reason to reject the Bible is because it doesn’t it doesn’t satisfy these requirements:
i. Is logically consistent
ii. we agree with where we get consistent outcomes
we like. (Note: It is interesting how this is used or added. The Bible may actually be consistent when it
comes to certain things, but if he doesn’t agree with the consistent outcomes,
it gives him an “out” so he can discard it. )
b. He states the Bible endorses slavery and cites
the Leviticus passage (Round 1)
i. He uses these 3 lines to proclaim that the Bible
as a whole promotes Slavery
ii. He seems to argue it’s inconsistency (hypocrisy)
with itself by stating the Bible says elsewhere that Israel is free, etc (although
he provides no citations for this)
iii. He ignores what Leviticus says, just a few lines
later in line 53 (Leviticus 25:53) in which God describes how the Master shall
treat the bondmen/bondwomen:
- “As a servant hired year by year shall he be
with him: he shall not rule with rigor over him in thy sight.” (His ASV
version)
- “The tenant alien shall treat those who sold
themselves as laborers hired on an annual basis, and the alien shall not lord
it over them harshly before your very eyes.” (my NABRE version)
- Both are basically saying that servants (bondman,
serf, slave) shall not be treated harshly. This hardly sounds like forced exploitation and trafficking. And hardly comparable to modern-day or recent
slavery.
iv. He also ignores what the Bible says
elsewhere about how we are to treat others (notably Jesus, who’s followers actually were the ones that compiled
said Bible)
c. He then implies that my interpretation of
Leviticus is wrong. As if there is some
correct way to interpret it, and he has this correct way, and I don’t (Round
2). But it begs the question, if he is
ignoring what the rest of the text (either Leviticus and the Bible itself) have
to say on Slavery or with regard to slavery, how can he be interpreting it
correctly?
d. In Round
3, he states that he is indeed arguing that the Bible is inconsistent with
itself (but doesn’t cite which specific passages it’s inconsistent with).
e. Then, he drops this bombshell in Round 3:
“I never
stated the Slavery stance in the Bible is inconsistent, the inconsistent
portion I was referring to was the sexism portion. Therefore this argument is
irrelevant since I never made such claims.”
Um, that is what he was arguing initially in Round 1. That the Bible endorses slavery….but yet at the
same time the Bible also doesn’t endorse slavery for some (Israel) is thus inconsistent
(not the same moment to moment)
But then, again in Round 3, based on other passages of the Bible, he
switches gears and says that the Bible is inconsistent on Slavery. So just to recap—He argued it was inconsistent,
but then states he wasn’t arguing that it was inconsistent, but then changes
his mind and says it’s inconsistent.
Which begs the question, has he not been considering the other passages
of the Bible before, and why now?
f. So the questions for my opponent are this
i. What exactly is the Bible’s take (position,
message) on Slavery? And did he arrive
at this conclusion—be simply reading the passage and not considering context
and what the rest of the Bible says? As he admits, in one instance it endorses
and on the other hand it condemns it. But
if two things are said or thought to be contradicting or inconsistent, how can
you say definitively it is one or the other? Without context, you can’t. But
with context you can.
I can say “I hate vegetables”. But
I also say “I love vegetables”. Can you
say definitively that I hate vegetables? But what if I only said I hated vegetables once, but said I loved
vegetables many more times—does that give you some insight into my stance on
vegetables? One person could say “He
endorses vegetable eating!” The other
can say “He despises Vegetable eating”. Who’s right? I’m sure this will be written off as a false
analogy or strawman, but this is done to illustrate a point. Context matters. We know it, and my opponent knows it. Yet he refuses to take context or the rest of
the Bible into consideration, unless it supports his position.
ii. But now let’s suppose for the sake of argument
that it is inconsistent when it comes to slavery, then what is the implication
of that? If you believe that the Bible
is meant to be a treatise on slavery, then the implication is huge—you will
deem it inconsistent and not worthy to be followed, as my opponent does.
But is it a treatise on slavery? Is that the purpose of the Bible? —what does the author say the purpose of that
passage is? And why is Leviticus even in
the Bible in the first place?
But if it is not intended to be a
treatise on slavery, but rather showing God’s relationship to man, then “inconsistency”
is not a reason to discard it, but one must interpret this “inconsistency” in
light of this larger view.
Let’s say I compile a group of
books into one collection— Let’s call this
collection The ComBible and in this compilation are the following books:
Night by Elie Weisel
Diary of a Young Girl by Anne
Franke
The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr
Solzhenitsyn
Animal
Farm by George Orwell
The
Rise and Fall of the Third Reich – William Shirer
Letter
from a Birmingham Jail – Martin Luther King, Jr
Man’s
Search for Meaning - Viktor Frankl
These books were collected in this manner for a
reason. If you do not know that reason,
then you may not be evaluating the collection properly. Would it be wise to discard the ComBible and
say “This collection believes animals can talk and form governments! This is ludicrous! We should not use this as a guide!” I would say, not only are you missing the
point of what that specific author (Orwell) intended show with that specific
book (Animal Farm), but your aslo missing the point the person who compiled the
book intended to show.
Conclusion:
By proclaiming “The Bible endorses slavery”, my opponent is
implying he has dove into the minds of the author and have somehow gleaned this
is what he (they) meant when he (they) wrote Leviticus and (compiled) the
Bible.
He offers no evidence, other than just a surface reading of
Leviticus, and comparing it to other passages (with my help).
Finally, I want to add, because I am just now remembering it….My
opponent makes the claim that his moral system is irrelevant (see Round 3)
His moral system is completely relevant. He is passing judgement on the Bible as a
Moral Compass (i.e. rendering it either good or bad). Whenever you pass judgement on something, be
it a person, an action, or text, you are essentially making an appeal (i.e. using) to
whatever Moral System you have in place. I question the “consistency” of such moral systems when it has as one of
its foundations “something we like”.
Round 4
Introduction:
Greetings everyone, I’d like to start off by thanking any voters or just readers for making this far. As well as my opponent for responding!
One thing I’d like to clear up for my opponent and voters is I may or may not be able to post my round 5 conclusions as this weekend I’ll be gone on a camping trip and won’t be back until Sunday afternoon. We’ll see how it goes though however, I would like to apologize for any voters and my opponent assuming I’ve had to FF the final round.
Anyways let’s dive in head first!
Interpretation:
My opponents first part of their argument delves into how different texts can be interpreted in different ways.
A problem I have is how long this portion is. This portion could’ve been explained in a few sentences or one paragraph rather than 5. Minor nitpick but just thought I’d give a level of transparency that I haven’t avoided this section and it’s mostly unneeded filler I don’t need to delve into. Now onto the actual arguments themselves.
My opponents first part of their argument delves into how different texts can be interpreted in different ways.
“ The possibilities are endless. It would be foolish to assume that the only correct interpretation is the 1st one, and ignore what other texts, works, authors have to say on the matter. “
- Firstly regarding sexism, I’ve cited not one but two quotes. Therefore this argument of perhaps it’s a coincidence that the interpretation is wrong is false and this still doesn’t ignore the inconsistency in the moral system regarding sexism.
- Secondly regarding slavery, my opponent never actually provided other scriptures debunking my point on slavery. All my opponent cited were scriptures that stated that slave masters should be nice to their slaves. I’ve already debunked this point previously in another round so I’ll debunk it again.
“ My opponent seems to ignore all that when it comes to the Bible. He takes one passage, be it from Leviticus, Corinthians or Timothy and proclaims “This is what the Bible teaches or condones” based on those passages. He ignores what the rest of the Bible, nay, the rest of those specific texts have to say.”
- Because consistency matters as outlined by the description which by accepting the debate, you’ve essentially agreed to. If one portion of the Bible endorses slavery and another condemns it, this is a logical inconsistency by definition.
“ 1. My opponent takes one passage from Leviticus and uses that as his foundation for proclaiming that the Bible endorses slavery. That’s akin to taking one line from Aesop’s fables and proclaiming “Aesop believes animals can talk so we should ignore his teachings!” Or akin to taking Orwell’s “Animal Farm” and proclaiming “Orwell believes animals can talk and form governments! This is preposterous we should discard what he says!” When you do this, you are missing the main point of “Aesop’s Fables”, “Animal Farm” or the Bible. “
- Here my opponent is creating a false equivalence fallacy.
“ 2. My opponent can’t seem to decide exactly what he’s arguing when it comes to Slavery:
a. In the Debate description, he states that the reason to reject the Bible is that it doesn’t satisfy these requirements:
i. Is logically consistent
ii. we agree with where we get consistent outcomes we like. (Note: It is interesting how this is used or added. The Bible may actually be consistent when it comes to certain things, but if he doesn’t agree with the consistent outcomes, it gives him an “out” so he can discard it. )”
- I stated in the description this,
“ To summarize, a good moral system is consistent and doesn't lead to absurdity “
“ iii. He ignores what Leviticus says, just a few lines later inline 53 (Leviticus 25:53) in which God describes how the Master shall treat the bondmen/bondwomen:
- “As a servant hired year by year shall he be with him: he shall not rule with rigor over him in thy sight.” (His ASV version)
- “The tenant alien shall treat those who sold themselves as laborers hired on an annual basis, and the alien shall not lord it over them harshly before your very eyes.” (my NABRE version)”
- Already debunked in a previous round and previously seen in this round.
“ - Both are basically saying that servants (bondman, serf, slave) shall not be treated harshly. This hardly sounds like forced exploitation and trafficking. And hardly comparable to modern-day or recent slavery. “
- The slaves as described in the Bible are being kidnapped thus being trafficked. Which therefore according to the United Nations, violated their human rights.
- The slaves are owned by masters and are forced to do labor against their will, thus being exploited. Which therefore according to the United Nations, violated their human rights.
“ d. In Round 3, he states that he is indeed arguing that the Bible is inconsistent with itself (but doesn’t cite which specific passages it’s inconsistent with).”
“Similar to sexism, the Bible has two stances of slavery, one being an endorsement and one being condemning it which makes it logically inconsistent due to the opposing stances exhibited.“
- As can be seen from the previous round, I’m going off of the passages from my argument and your argument. Therefore this argument is false.
“ e. Then, he drops this bombshell in Round 3:
“I never stated the Slavery stance in the Bible is inconsistent, the inconsistent portion I was referring to was the sexism portion. Therefore this argument is irrelevant since I never made such claims.”
Um, that is what he was arguing initially in Round 1. That the Bible endorses slavery….but yet at the same time the Bible also doesn’t endorse slavery for some (Israel) is thus inconsistent (not the same moment to moment) “
“ As he admits, in one instance it endorses and on the other hand, it condemns it. But if two things are said or thought to be contradicting or inconsistent, how can you say definitively it is one or the other? Without context, you can’t. But with context, you can. “
- Which is precisely why in that round I stated that I’ve changed my mind and the Bible’s views on slavery are inconsistently assuming my opponent is correct in their quotations somehow proving the Bible isn’t endorsing it.
“ I can say “I hate vegetables”. But I also say “I love vegetables”. Can you say definitively that I hate vegetables? But what if I only said I hated vegetables once but said I loved vegetables many more times—does that give you some insight into my stance on vegetables? “
“ Yet he refuses to take context or the rest of the Bible into consideration unless it supports his position.”
- Because it’s an inconsistency and as outlined by the description. An inconsistent morality system isn’t a good one.
“ Let’s say I compile a group of books into one collection— Let’s call this collection The ComBible and in this compilation are the following books:
Night by Elie Weisel
Diary of a Young Girl by Anne Franke
The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Animal Farm by George Orwell
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich – William Shirer
Letter from a Birmingham Jail – Martin Luther King, Jr
Man’s Search for Meaning - Viktor Frankl “
Another false equivalence, these books are insanely different from one another, unlike the Bible which is mostly all compiled in the same time period, all are presumably nonfiction, and all are taking the morality system from one person.
Firstly Animal Farm is a fiction book which is rather different from nonfiction historical biographies or documents.
Secondly, Letter from a Birmingham Jail is from the civil rights movement and not concerning the holocaust.
Thirdly, The Gulag Archipelago a biography set in a Soviet Union Gulag and not in the holocaust.
Fourthly, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich isn’t a bibliography documented during the actual times of the events.
This is a rather interesting group of books my opponent compiles, one of which is fiction, two are irrelevant to the holocaust, and another isn’t a bibliography.
My opponent seems to be arguing that I am taking the Bible out of context since the Bible is a collection of different books.
Books which were written about the same subject, unlike my opponent's example which has books ranging from a wide array of subjects.
Books which were also all ( presumably ) nonfiction, unlike my opponent's example.
Taking this into account, this analogy is a false equivalence and should be disregarded as such.
“.My opponent makes the claim that his moral system is irrelevant (see Round 3)
His moral system is completely relevant. He is passing judgment on the Bible as a Moral Compass (i.e. rendering it either good or bad). Whenever you pass judgment on something, be it a person, an action, or text, you are essentially making an appeal (i.e. using) to whatever Moral System you have in place.”
- My opponent has made multiple false equivalence fallacies.
- My opponent has still yet to counter my claims regarding the Bible being logically inconsistent.
- My opponent has misinterpreted the debate description
I could've provided further quotations however at this point I've deemed them to be unnecessary. I apologize if anyone was looking forward to them and I may or may not do another debate concerning this subject. If I do I can assure I'll bring them up as the quotes defiantly bring into question the Bibles sense of justice.
- PinkFreud08
Just to clarify, my opponent makes the claim that by accepting
the debate, I’ve agreed to what’s in the description. I beg to differ. The description is just an expansion (dare I
say, a description) of what’s in the debate title. Accepting a debate is not automatically
accepting (conceding) the points made in the Description. What’s in the debate description is what’s
being debated in as much as what the Debate Title says. What is in the debate description is not
automatically accepted as FACT. What is
a debate description? It’s a description
about what the debate is about. If the
debate description happened to state something to the effect of “Acceptance of
debate is accepting the Bible is inconsistent”, then I would agree with my
opponent. But it doesn’t.
The onus is not on me to argue, justify or explain away the inconsistencies (which I’ve done by the way). What I am arguing is that “inconsistency” alone is not necessarily a good one reason to discard a Moral System, especially if one (a) can’t show that it’s an inconsistency, or prove that this is what the Bible is in fact teaching.
My opponent continues to argue his Moral System is
irrelevant. I say it’s absolutely
relevant. He is making a judgement on
something as good or bad, and the moment you make a judgement as “good” or “not
good (i.e “bad”) you are appealing to whatever Moral System you have in
place. Saying something is “inconsistent”
is not assigning morality—it’s simply stating data or facts. Had he just left it at that, I would agree
and say he is correct, his moral system is irrelevant. However, the moment you call that something “good”
or “bad” you are turning it into a Morality question.
So it is absolutely relevant. And not only is my opponent’s Moral System
relevant, it’s critical that it be a Good Moral system. For if the Moral System he uses (the Moral
System that deems the Bible “not good”), then his basis for deeming the Bible “not
good” is flawed, and his argument falls apart.
My opponent says “To summarize, a good
moral system is consistent and doesn't lead to absurdity.” And that if a Good Moral System (GMS)
doesn’t meet both requirements, it is to be discarded. That’s basically the foundation for his
rejection of the Bible. Please
note that according to this definition, in order to be deemed “Good” (and thus,
not discarded), a Moral System (MS) must satisfy both: be (A) consistent AND (B) not lead to
absurdity. It can therefore be inferred
that if a MS fails either one of these requirements (fails A OR fails B), then
that MS is to be discarded. In short, it
doesn’t pass the GMS sniff test.
Put Simply:
A Good Moral System (GMS) must satisfy BOTH of these requirements:
(A) – be consistent
(B) – doesn’t lead to absurdity
Likewise, a Moral System must be discarded if it fails either (A) or (B) or both—but only one need fail in order to be discarded.
Implications of this:
1. This becomes the “yard stick” against which other
Moral Systems are measured. It effectively
is a Moral System that is used to pass judgement (deem good or bad) on other Moral
Systems. This IS a moral system. Whenever
you use something else as a yardstick to measure other things and deem them “good”
or “not good,” that something is in effect a “Moral System” which is used to
evaluate something as “good” or “not good.” He is assigning morality based on whether or not it’s consistent or
not. If it’s “inconsistent”, it’s bad—no
ifs, ands or buts. If it’s inconsistent,
it must be discarded—no ifs, ands or buts. Same goes for “leading to absurdity”. This is a very important point—you will need to remember this later
on. SO, these guidelines effectively
become the Moral System that is thus used to deem the Bible as “good” or “not
good”—in other words, it is what we use to assess the Bible’s morality. Let’s call this Moral System “X”
2. It is also safe to infer that this Moral System, “X”, must itself be consistent and not lead to absurdity, otherwise it will violate its own rules and thus lead to it itself being deemed not good and thus discarded).
3. If it is to be consistent, then it this Moral System, “X”, must be used to evaluate all other Moral Systems , otherwise there is no consistency, and one simply chose this Moral system (analyzing consistency and absurdity) because it met one’s agenda (to discard the Bible).
does it lead to absurdity? Yes or NO. If yes, then my opponent’s Moral System is to be discarded (see (B) above)
And if it is to be discarded, then it follows his claim that “the Bible is not good” is baseless, since the Moral System he himself used to deem it “not good” is itself “not good.”
If my opponent used is Moral System inconsistently to
evaluate other Moral Systems, how confident are we that he used it correctly to
evaluate the Bible?
My opponent is always making the claim that my analogies are false analogies etc. I’m not using the analogies to “prove” my position (i.e. analogies A, B, and C do this, therefore Y must do this). No I explain why Y must do this, and use the analogies A, B, and C to help him view it, not as a reason to why it is. Like Vizzini, I do not think it means what he thinks it means.
https://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/30960-un-secretary-general-antonio-guterres-at-munich-security-conference
Sorry, the U.N. fails the GMS sniff test by being inconsistent. Remember, this doesn’t leave any room for ifs, ands or buts.
My opponent though used the U.N. as a Moral System, therefore
he must have evaluated it as “good”. But
yet, it’s been deemed “not good” by his own definition….tsk tsk…another
inconsistent use of a Moral System.
Happy camping. Remember, when being chased by a bear, all you have to do is outrun the
other guys!
The onus is not on me to argue, justify or explain away the inconsistencies (which I’ve done by the way). What I am arguing is that “inconsistency” alone is not necessarily a good one reason to discard a Moral System, especially if one (a) can’t show that it’s an inconsistency, or prove that this is what the Bible is in fact teaching.
Put Simply:
A Good Moral System (GMS) must satisfy BOTH of these requirements:
(A) – be consistent
(B) – doesn’t lead to absurdity
Likewise, a Moral System must be discarded if it fails either (A) or (B) or both—but only one need fail in order to be discarded.
Implications of this:
2. It is also safe to infer that this Moral System, “X”, must itself be consistent and not lead to absurdity, otherwise it will violate its own rules and thus lead to it itself being deemed not good and thus discarded).
3. If it is to be consistent, then it this Moral System, “X”, must be used to evaluate all other Moral Systems , otherwise there is no consistency, and one simply chose this Moral system (analyzing consistency and absurdity) because it met one’s agenda (to discard the Bible).
Now, my opponent has a Moral System “Z” and he uses this Moral
System “Z” to evaluate another Moral System, the Bible. Again, he claims his moral system “Z” is irrelevant,
but I explained why it’s relevant above (paragraph 3). If his own Moral System “Z” is itself “not
good”, then his deeming the Bible is “not good” is baseless, since the moral
system “Z” he uses is “not good”. So, in
reality, we NEED to know if his Moral System “Z” is good (or “not good”).
My opponent must use this same Moral System “Z” to evaluate
not just the Bible, but other Moral Systems as well, whatever they may be. If not, he is being selective, not consistent
and is rejecting the Bible while using a completely different Moral System to evaluate other Moral Systems.
Do we know exactly what Moral System “Z” he used in order to
deem the Bible good or ‘not good’, yes we do—it’s the same as the one that’s in
the description. But what’s most
important is, this Moral System “Z” he uses:
is it
consistent? Yes or NO…..if no, then my
opponent’s Moral System it is to be discarded (see (A) above), ordoes it lead to absurdity? Yes or NO. If yes, then my opponent’s Moral System is to be discarded (see (B) above)
And if it is to be discarded, then it follows his claim that “the Bible is not good” is baseless, since the Moral System he himself used to deem it “not good” is itself “not good.”
Remember, only 1 (either A or B) needs to fail in order for
it to be deemed “not good” and thus discarded.
You may recall that in previous rounds and comments, my
opponent made the implication in one of his comments that there is no “100%
consistent” moral system. Thereby implying that all Moral Systems are to a
certain degree inconsistent. But if all
moral systems are inconsistent, they are to be discarded by definition….including
his own….remember the rules above? If it’s
“inconsistent” (doesn’t matter to what degree), it is to be discarded—no ifs,
ands or buts. No wonder he backpedaled
rapidly form this assertion—his own pronouncements “incriminated” (deemed “not
good”) his own moral system. But this is
important:
1. He
evaluated other moral systems against some yardstick (his own Moral System “Z”)
and declared them to be inconsistent, and by his own definition (in debate
description) thus assigned a morality (good or not good to them). Again, it doesn’t matter what “Z” is—he just
used it to deem it “not good”.
2. Later, he re-evaluated other moral systems
again, but yielded a different result—not all Moral Systems are “not good”,
some are actually “good”.
What was his moral system “Z” that he used to evaluate these
other Moral Systems? It’s the same as in
the debate description. It has to be,
otherwise he’d be rejecting one Moral System (The Bible) for one reason, but
not using the same yardstick to accept/reject other Moral Systems.
But herein lies my opponent’s conundrum. He used the exact same Moral System “Z” (same
as the debate description) to evaluate Moral Systems two different times, and
yielded two different results: 1st result was that “there is no 100% Consistent Moral System” (or put another way
all Moral Systems are inconsistent to a certain degree)….2nd result
was “some moral systems are consistent”
What could explain the 2 different results? There are two possibilities:
Possibility #1 – Moral System “Z” is inconsistent - If the Moral
System “Z” (which again, is the same Moral System of the debate description) is
inconsistent, then, by my opponent’s definition it is “not good”, and if it is
not good it is to be discarded. But it
was this same Moral System “Z” that was used to evaluate the Bible. But his evaluation of the Bible is not good
is baseless, since the Moral System “Z” used to arrive at that is inconsistent
and thus “not good” Possibility #2 – Moral System “Z” is in fact consistent, but
was used inconsistently by my opponent.
But my opponent made the claim that his Moral System is 100%
consistent in and of itself, which leaves the only option that it was used
inconsistently by my opponent.
My opponent is always making the claim that my analogies are false analogies etc. I’m not using the analogies to “prove” my position (i.e. analogies A, B, and C do this, therefore Y must do this). No I explain why Y must do this, and use the analogies A, B, and C to help him view it, not as a reason to why it is. Like Vizzini, I do not think it means what he thinks it means.
Similarly, my opponent appeals to the UN as a reason to show
why Slavery is wrong. I would argue that too is a false equivalence. The UN is an entity for our modern age, to use
it and apply to situations 1000+ years ago is not equivalent.
But this brings up another good point. My opponent uses the U.N to say that “Slavery”
is wrong. Again, the U.N. now becomes
his yard stick, his “Moral System” that he uses to evaluate “Slavery”. Let’s analyze this Moral System and see if it
passes the GMS sniff test, shall we?
It didn’t take much research to find that sure enough, the
U.N. has been inconsistent, by it's own admission (read it's own admission of contradictions on certain things). https://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/30960-un-secretary-general-antonio-guterres-at-munich-security-conference
Sorry, the U.N. fails the GMS sniff test by being inconsistent. Remember, this doesn’t leave any room for ifs, ands or buts.
Round 5
Sorry I got back late last night and than had school today.
Currently typing this during lunch with 2 hours left.
Obviously I can't type up a proper conclusion paragraph within my 10 minute lunch break so I apologize for not being able to provide one.
- pinkfreud08
Closing thoughts:
1. Any interpretation of any text carries with it
the weighty responsibility of showing that your interpretation is AUTHORITATIVE
and CORRECT. That’s common sense, and we
practice this every day. We don’t just
believe whatever someone says about this book, poem, letter, etc if (a) they haven’t
read its entirety or (b) pick certain passages and ignore how it relates to the
rest of the text and other contexts.
a. Anybody
can interpret any text (including the Bible). 5 different people can give 5 different interpretations of a text.
b. It’s
not enough to say “This book teaches/endorses __________!” , one must also show that this interpretation is correct—that it
does indeed teach this.
c. I
can proclaim “This book endorses SLAVERY!”, but if I am unable to show that my
interpretation is the correct interpretation, then the argument (proclamation)
holds no weight, it's just an opinion
d. My
opponent has read the Bible and has thus interpreted it and is proclaiming it
endorses Slavery and is Sexist.
e. But
he offers no evidence or proof that HIS interpretation is indeed correct.
f. He simply cites 1 passage that mentions slavery.
i. Does it really make sense to take a very LARGE
text, which is composed of several different books, written by several
different authors at several different times, and then use one line from book,
and ignore others, and proclaim “THIS” is what that text teaches? No. We
wouldn’t do that with any other work. We
do say that a TEXT (book, letter, poem, etc) and say the entire Text endorses
______ based on 1 line. And yet this is
exactly what my opponent is doing
ii. If one passage is sufficient to proclaim this is what the text endorses, then surely my
several passages about Jesus are sufficient to state the Bible does not endorse
slavery but teaches the opposite.
g. Any
interpretation of a text must take into account context of the passages, and
how it relates to the rest of the text. We learn this in grade school. We learn not to interpret a book, a poem, a
novel, a letter, etc solely based on 1 or 2 lines found on pages 32, 453, 1069,
or wherever. And yet, this is exactly
what my opponent is doing.
2. My opponent is arguing that the Bible should be
discarded as a Moral Compass, and the reason for discarding is that it’s
inconsistent. That is the debate.
a. My
opponent proclaims the Bible endorses slavery. He doesn’t show successfully show that the Bible endorses slavery (one
passage is insufficient to make a broad brush statement about a text), nor does
he successfully show it’s inconsistent on what it teaches on slavery
i. He cites one passage from Leviticus, and
proclaims that it endorses slavery. He
does say it is “inconsistent” with other parts of the Bible, but he doesn’t
reference those “other parts” by chapter, verse, etc.” Had he perhaps referenced other passages by
chapter and verse, he might make a case that it does have two different
passages saying two different things about slavery. But if it does, then how can he say it
endorses one over the other? He can’t. He’s
picking and choosing what he wants to deliver a message.
ii. So what is he arguing? That’s inconsistent with itself? He doesn’t cite evidence, he just says it
is. Is he arguing that the Bible is
inconsistent with how we view slavery? I
would agree that particular passage is, but that one passage from Leviticus
does not encapsulate the Bible’s overall teaching on slavery and how we are to
treat our fellow man (as shown in the passages I cite).
b. My
opponent proclaims the Bible is Sexist and he cites two passages. But these passages state the same message, so
he is in fact not debating the “internal inconsistency” when it comes to the
treatment of women. Instead, he just proclaims the Bible is sexist.
i. Like slavery, he doesn’t successfully show that
this is the Bible’s overall teaching on how to treat women. 2 passages are not enough to make a broad
brush statement that the Bible “teaches” or “endorses” ___________.
ii. I cite many more passages that show how the
Bible is not sexist, but rather elevates women in ways it doesn’t elevate
men.
iii. So he is not arguing it’s inconsistent when it
comes to women (again, he cites two passages that say the same thing). Instead, he is trying to convince us that the
Bible is “sexist” based these 2 passages alone
3. What IS my opponent successful in arguing?
a. That
his own judgement of Morals Systems is in itself inconsistent (notice how he
goes from “there are no 100% consistent moral systems” to ultimately “100% Moral
System can be consistent and he just so
happens to have one”). If his own Moral
System is inconsistent, based on his judgement of other Moral Systems, then
this would compel him to discard his own Moral System due to inconsistency (his
own rules). Otherwise he’d be violating
his own rule for discarding a moral system (that a Moral System which is inconsistent
should be discarded).
b. He
is perhaps interpreting the a text (the Bible) differently than he would other
texts.
i. If he is in fact interpreting other texts in
this same way (i.e. taking 1 or 2 passages and proclaiming this is what it
teaches or endorses), then, no disrespect intended, I question his ability to
say what this voluminous text teaches or endorses based on 1 passage (Slavery)
or 2 passages (treatment of women)
ii. But if he is in fact interpreting the Bible differently
than he would other texts, this should give us pause. Why would he interpret it differently—a (conscious
or unconscious) bias, maybe?
1. And
if this is how he believes that the Bible should be interpreted, based on 1
passage or 2 passages, then he has no basis to deny my counter-claims which are
based on many more passages.
Because of this inability to show that the OVERALL TEACHING of the Bible is inconsistent, it's unproven inconsistency is no reason to discard the Bible.
"1 Corinthians 14:34-35:"
That's Paul quoting something that the Corinthians originally said to him, which he then refutes. Also, Paul command women to pray and prophecy in the church
"1 Timothy 2:12:"
Paul was responding to a heresy btw.
"This doesn’t excuse the fact that the Bible is still calling wives inferior to their male counterparts."
Have you read Eph 5:25?
Appreciate that you took the time to thoroughly read the entire debate and give a detailed vote as this was a pretty long one.
Do you feel there are any gigantic mistakes I made and/or improvements I could make to make my overall arguments better?
Consistency:
Firstly pro appears to argue that con is not showing that the bible is inconsistent - yet he seems to be doing just that.
Secondly, pro argues that we should not be judging the bible against our own standard, that it cannot be assessed as a good standard if compared against our own. This part of the argument had legs (though this whole portion of the debate was very hard to follow)
If pro had doubled down and asked why is it bad to support slavery or sexism- as you can’t judge it agains your own standard- I may have awarded the win; but the argument somewhat Peters out and leaves me dangling on this front.
As a result, pro doesn’t give me much of a reason to object to the slavery or sexism points.
The final aspect is consistency and general - I agree with pro that cons standard was a bit nebulous: but my main issue is that did not appear to be a better one. Cons position throughout mostly appealed to moral contradiction (established) and bad morality like slavery (intuitive), in the absence of pro arguing an acceptable level of contradiction and what standard I should use to measure the morality - I have to weigh it by intuition.
Given that slavery and sexism both appeared to be portrayed either odiously to me, or contradictarly: either way I feel stands against the bible.
As pro does not offer a positive case for himself - this means that arguments go to con.
Pro goes on to claim that con hasn’t got a
Consistent argument, but pro makes a big error here by pointing out that pro can’t decide which damning indictment of the Bible he wishes to argue. The main problem is that without actually refuting the damning indictments - they are dangling over pros position.
My issue in this point is that the bible as a moral framework stated slavery is okay. While I could accept a change, pro doesn’t give me a good reason as to why it’s okay for a moral framework to claim slavery was okay - even if historically. There’s not enough here for me to give this to pro - even though I think con could have been more specific.
Translation:
Pro begins by claiming that there is a problem with cons context and translational understanding of the bible.
Whilst pro does a good job of convincing me that such errors are easily possible: pro doesn’t actually give examples of con making these errors in context. As a result this whole argument doesn’t add much to the detail. Thus this doesn’t change any of my weighing.
Sexism: con lists examples of sexism in the bible, where women are expected to be treated in a different, more negative way (such as keeping quiet in church, or being subject to men)
Pros response doesn’t rebut any of the specific claims made. Instead pro merely lists reasons that other parts of the bible are not sexist or exalt woman: the one I found most odd, was that God chose a woman to give birth to Jesus: which was just an odd point - is God found to make a man give birth to Jesus?
Pros last example is odd; as pro appears to confirm the man-head-woman-subservient; but appears to argue this is okay, because the man is required to love the woman.
In the next round con basically points out that the bible is inconsistent - that even if one buys pros case - some parts are sexist some are not is inherently inconsistent.
Pro then argues con has not shown any inconsistency - I don’t get this, as con is pretty explicit. The entire topic is changed up to a discussion about consistency rather than one specifically revolving around what the bible says about sexism
This argument mostly fizzles out; with pro dropping the point to focus on another argument.
Slavery:
Cons case seems fairly self explanatory: that slavery was okay, but is exempted for Israel - making the case that it’s also racist and hypocritical.
Pros response was to simply say that the bible teaches the slavery aspect as history; that there were also rules for treating slaves well, and this were only the rules for the given time.
I don’t think con did as well with this: and mostly doubled down on the contention, without addressing the “different rules”
Portion.
Pro mostly drops these points in the second round to focus on other points: con points out that the bible has two stances on slavery, one accepting and one rejecting.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PoliceSheep// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con do arguments, 2 points to pro for sources
>Reason for Decision: I was more convinced by pro and they certainly had better conduct.
Reason for Mod Action>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
The voter should review the site code of conduct for details of what does and does not constitute a valid vote.
*******************************************************************
That's irrelevant, users are still required to give a sufficient vote and are still required to be eligible.
It's open voting.
Firstly you're ineligible to vote and secondly this RFD is insufficient as it doesn't go into enough detail.
Almost 3K into a RFD, and I am undecided. When I've had more sleep I might look over it again. If I score points or not, I'll be sure to leave feedback.
Good job guys, I may vote on this. One thing to ask is to make things prettier to look at. These massive text blobs felt like they were attacking my retinas. Although, Pinkfreud was a bit better about it.
Only 3 days left!
I have a long debate for you guys to vote on, I'd appreciate a vote and any way I can improve my arguments.
I see
Yeah I'm in bay area California
though I get out lat June like the last 3 days of June, northeast is different
you guys are back to school already, yikes. I dont get back until the 2nd, wtf
Only 22 hours left! I'd really like to see your response.
NOTE FOR VOTERS:
I've had to cut out some fluff in the debate, namely some quotes and a few redundant sections due to a character limit. I apologize due to this. I also apologize since I didn't have room for new arguments. As I said at the end, I may or may not bring up new arguments. It all depends on the character limit.
I have no idea why you're bringing up previous comments I made when I discarded them in my last comment and admitted I worded it weirdly and then clarified exactly my position.
Secondly, regarding my moral system, this is a clear misrepresentation of my argument.
You provided arguments against my moral system and I rebutted the false analogies you gave.
I have no idea why this is used as an argument against me when you've brought this up in the first place.
And I actually agree, this has nothing to do with the debate and is a waste of time. I already gave clarification on moral systems and provided you the clear instructions in the debate.
I have no clue as to why I need to keep reiterating when you're clearly not listening and are instead going on to make the same false analogies and ask the same questions over and over even though I've already given a rebuttal and answered them. And again these questions are almost irrelevant.
Keep in mind, I'm not saying your particular Moral System (evaluating based on impact to society and if it produces results you agree with or like) is good or bad, just simply commenting that it's inconsistent.
I truly do believe you when you say your moral system is 100% consistent for you. Yep. I have no doubt that you use this moral system consistently. I believe when you say it's consistent for you. But someone else using that same moral system (Impact on society and results you agree with) might draw a different moral conclusion than you for the exact same action (we see this every day all around us). A moral system that gives different results when used is not consistent in my book.
So then, it comes back to my earlier points.
A. You say the Bible is inconsistent.
B. That is the foundation for discarding it (per the Debate description)
C, You have another Moral System that you use. However, this other moral system is likewise inconsistent. So you've basically swapped one inconsistent Moral System (the Bible) for another (Societal Impact and Results you like).
D. So "inconsistency" is not the real reason for discarding the Bible, for if "inconsistency" was the real reason, you wouldn't be using the Moral System you use now, which is also inconsistent.
E. The real reason for discarding the Bible is you feel it is a less consistent Moral System, compared what you use now.
F. SO then this becomes a numbers game (how many inconsistencies does the Bible have compared to your Moral System) as well as a severity game (how HUGE are the inconsistencies in the Bible vs the inconsistencies in your Moral System).
a. Severity is very subjective. What you may deem "huge", someone else may not
Technically speaking, for the debate, I'm not so sure I have to prove your Moral System is inconsistent because (a) the debate is about whether or not the Bible is a good moral compass (with consistency at the foundation of your argument), not whether or not your current moral system in use is consistent, and (b) you've kinda already done that for me :).
1. Your foundational argument for discarding the Bible is that it's inconsistent and doesn't give consistent outcomes you like. From your description: "consistency isn't the only thing we're looking for we also need a moral system that we agree with where we get consistent outcomes we like."
2. When pressed for your definition of consistency, you seem to struggle
a. First you say no Moral System is 100% consistent. And then you go on to explain that a Moral system that is not 100% consistent can still be called "consistent" based on the number of inconsistencies (Majority) or the severity of the inconsistencies (HUGE inconsistencies, as you put it).
b. Then you say a Moral System can be 100% consistent, but it depends on the person. This means that the moral system is either (a) not consistent, because if it's dependent on the person it's going to change from person to person to person or (b) it's purely subjective.
3. You then make the bold claim that your moral system is 100% consistent, meaning it never fails (if it fails, just once, then it's not 100% consistent). Not sure how you can defend that. A Moral system that is built on a subjective idea of "what is good for society and produces results I agree with" is going to vary person to person to person for the exact same situation.
Not sure how you can say your moral system is 100% consistent in and of itself. You say your moral system is based on impact to society and provides results you like. I then gave a generic situation/hypothetical (not even using a real-world example) of how Society might deem something as Good and enact a law for something, but you happen to disagree with it. In that situation, you would be disagreeing with Society (the law)...You agreed that yes, you would stand firm with your belief and actually followed it up with a real-world possible scenario of gun control (gun rights). NOw, one might counter "But I believe gun rights are beneficial to society, so in reality my moral still holds up. I'm measuring it against the benefit of society and it has results i agree with it" But the guy down the street might disagree. He may be actualizing saying "I think gun rights are bad, unlike you. But I too am measuring the impact against society and it has results I like." So now you have two different people using the exact same moral system (Impact to society and does it give results they like) but yielding two very different results.
Doesn't sound very consistent to me.
Honestly, I'm having a hard time keeping up with your definitions and descriptions of moral systems and "consistent". First you say no Moral system is 100% consistent. Then you say Moral Systems can be 100% consistent, but it depends on the person.
** Moral systems can be consistent, it's dependent on the person. **
If a moral system is considered "Consistent", shouldn't it be the same person to person to person. If a Moral system works one way for Joe, and another way for Jane, and then another another way for Juan, and then another way for Jethro, to me that doesn't sound like consistency.
So are you saying then a moral system is "subjective"? I know that's not the subject of the debate-- it's whether or not the Bible is a good moral compass (with consistency as the foundation for your argument). But it's begging this question.
I'll admit, I've worded this a bit weirdly so let me explain how this works.
Moral systems can be 100 % consistent but they generally lead to absurdity.
For instance, I can say my moral system is that any living organism must die, well this moral system is consistent however can be rather absurd.
Moral systems can be consistent, it's dependent on the person.
For instance, if you're a psychopath and an idiot, that moral system would work since it's consistent and in your mind, doesn't lead to absurdity.
Obviously, for the vast majority of people, this moral system doesn't work.
Most moral systems and the people who abide by them are sometimes inconsistent.
In the case of the Bible, the system itself is inconsistent and the inconsistency isn't dependent on the person thus making it overall inconsistent.
My moral system is 100 % consistent in and of itself. Obviously, some people may have different beliefs however this moral system works for me and gives me results I like. However, you still haven't provided me evidence that I am inconsistent since you've used false analogies.
I hope this clarifies that moral systems can be consistent, it's mostly dependent on the person.
2. ** if the moral system works the majority of the time than it's consistent. If it only works in a few scenarios it isn't.**
a. So it comes down to numbers—the number of times it works? “Majority” refers to quantity, specifically, technically speaking, majority means anything greater than 50%.
b. But what if the one time it doesn’t work, it’s a huge one—consistent or not consistent? I mean, you did say after all “finding one exception doesn’t make or break the entire system unless it’s a huge one.” So what your saying is one HUGE exception could break the system (i.e. make it inconsistent?). So something could, by your definitions work the majority of the time, but have one HUGE inconsistency and still be considered inconsistent?
On the one hand you imply it’s related to the number of scenarios (if it works the majority of the time, it’s consistent)
On the other hand you imply it’s not necessarily quantity, but severity (HUGE inconsistencies).
Or is that you are saying it’s both? It can be either the QUANTITY of inconsistencies or the SEVERITY of inconsistencies, or both, that determine whether or not it’s consistent?
i. If It’s QUANTITY, then what is the magic number? I’m assuming by “Majority of the time” you mean anything greater than 50% of the time.
ii. If it’s SEVERITY, how is that defined or determined, and by whom?
1. ** I define consistent as consistent as reasonably possible.””
a. I take issue with how you define “consistent”—you really shouldn’t use the word within its definition. You wouldn’t define “high quality” by saying “something that has high quality”. Nonetheless, I think I can work with it.
b. Veganism - Not sure I agree with this. If one eats meat, can one still call oneself a “vegan”? Not sure how that works lol. I guess your point is it depends on the number of times one eats meat? If the “permissible # of circumstances” are small, I guess you are saying you could still be vegan.
c. ** Finding one exception doesn't make or break the entire system unless it's a huge one.** What do you mean by a “huge one”? Within the moral system, who or what defines what is “huge”?
Regarding your 1st comment, yes this is essentially my moral system and thought process.
Now onto your 2nd comment,
1. I define consistent as consistent as reasonably possible.
Obviously there is no known 100 % morally consistent system that doesn't lead to absurditiy in some way.
For instance veganism, well there are certain circumstances where I believe eating meat would be permissible, so therefore veganism isn't 100 % consistent.
However this obviously doesn't make it ok in EVERY single context. Finding one exception doesn't make or break the entire system unless it's a huge one.
2. See previous comment, if the moral system works the majority of the time than it's consistent. If it only works in a few scenarios it isn't.
I'll be examining this in my 1st rebuttal and going into detail on this however each moral system has one or two exceptions depending on the person, however generally these don't it.
3. I am discarding the Bible not because of one or two arbitrary scenarios of why it's inconsistent. I'll go into more detail in my first rebuttal however the Bible has huge inconsistencies which I'll bring up soon.
As we will examine later, there is a difference between one or two minor inconsistencies depending on the person and HUGE inconsistencies on the moral system.
Besides this is assuming the scenarios you've brought up prove my system is inconsistent, all of the scenarios you've brought up don't so you still haven't proven my moral system is inconsistent.
A few more questions, if I may be so bold:
1. You state "The goal of a moral system is to find a system which is logically consistent.". How would you define "consistent"?
2. In your comment below, you state "really you found a moral system that is 100 % consistent, that holds up in ANY scenario, ok share it with me." I take this comment to mean that you believe there is not a moral system that is 100% consistent? If something is not 100% consistent, doesn't that by definition mean it's inconsistent? If so then what would be debatable is it's "level" of inconsistency? Put another way, do you believe all moral systems are inconsistent to a certain degree? Or perhaps a 100% consistent moral system exists, we just haven't found it yet-- so we make do with what we got....a moral system that is inconsistent?
3. Aren't you using the Bible's "inconsistency" as a basis, your foundation, for discarding it as a moral system (a moral compass)? But then aren't other moral systems inconsistent to certain degrees (isn't that what you implied in your "100% comment"?). So, by your comments, you're basically trading one inconsistent moral system (the Bible) for another inconsistent moral system (how it benefits society).
I mean if you really wanted to be, dare I say it, "consistent", you'd be discarding pretty much other moral systems for their "inconsistencies"?
So am I correct to assume then that you are not discarding the Bible because it has "inconsistencies" (all moral systems are inconsistent if I understand your comment correctly), but rather you seem to believe that other moral systems are more "consistent" then the Bible?
Let me make sure I have this straight. Let's recap. From your perspective
1. The yard-stick (standard) you use for determining something as "good" or "bad" is the impact to society (is it "good" or "bad" for society).
2. In General, the government/society determines whether or not something is beneficial to said society. However, you also make the assessment of whether or something is "good" or "bad" for society. If you and Society differ on what, then you will stand firm in your belief (generally). In other words,
a) If "Society" says "X" is "good" for society, but you disagree-- you will stand firm and regard it as "bad"
b) If "Society" says "X" is "bad" for society, but you disagree-- you will stand firm and regard it as "good"
If the above is incorrect, please correct me.
" I would argue that a good moral system should hold up to any scenario.....ANY (otherwise, it's not consistent, right?). "
- Firstly, really you found a moral system that is 100 % consistent, that holds up in ANY scenario, ok share it with me.
Secondly, you're conflating consistency with the guidelines the moral system has.
Thirdly, I am not just dismissing them because they're extreme, I am also dismissing them since they are straw-manning the moral system since the scenarios you've brought up so far don't benefit society.
Regarding your points on MLK, they're irrelevant.
Holocausting jews was very obviously not beneficial to society. Not to mention the fact that it ruins the society since a good portion of Germans disagreed with Hitlers views but were forced to go along with them out of fear.
And again, murdering a portion of the population ruins everyone's commitment to that society since the vast majority of people aren't psychopaths.
A. Depends on the circumstance, generally the government/society decides. Now will their moral system be good for society? Possibly but generally the governments values are beneficial towards society however again context matters and I don't believe the government is perfect. The times where are values align is pure coincidence.
B. If society deemed X to be good but I don't believe it's, I'd consider it to be bad.
For instance many people believe gun control is beneficial to society, I disagree since I don't believe it's.
C. Like B, if Society deemed gun rights as bad I'd disagree since I believe it's important and beneficial towards society.
My moral system is dictated by me.
You may cast aside what I say as "reductio ad absurdum" fallacy. Maybe...Maybe not. Some of the things you mention were at some point deemed "acceptable" by their society. As MLK points out in his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail", let's not forget that what Hitler did was considered "legal" ("OK") in their society.
I would argue that a good moral system should hold up to any scenario.....ANY (otherwise, it's not consistent, right?). While you might dismiss some scenarios as "extreme", but I think it highlights the shortcomings of such a moral system. YOu get enough people to agree on something, even the most "extreme" scenarios could, eventually, be put in place.
Relax. I don't think you're a psycho or socio-path. I was simply using your words. You didn't necessarily provide context-- you just said a good moral system is one that is logically consistent and gives you results you like.
But now...I'm confused. I need you to clarify on what exactly a "good moral system" is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to you a Moral System should be
1. Logically consistent
2. Impact on society (good or bad for society)
3. Lines up with your views
When I first read your comment back, I thought it was just 1 and 2...and then you added #3. I'm not going to dispute #1, I tend to agree with that. But this now begs the question(s):
A. Who says/dictates what's "Good"/"Bad" for society-- you alone? You and someone else? Or does society as a whole do that? Is it done by popular vote?
B. What, if society deems X to be "Good" (or "Bad") for Society, but you don't happen to agree with it. Would you consider it as "Good" (or "Bad"), or would you go along and change your mindset to agree to it as "Good" (or "Bad") because Society says so?
C. Conversely, what if you think something is "Good" or "Bad", but society renders it the opposite-- would you go along with what Society says?
2A: Moral systems don't take into account context, therefore it depends on the context. Moral systems are mostly meant to be guidelines rather than set in stone rules generally.
Secondly, you're taking me completely out of context. When I meant by giving me results I like I meant by results that line up with my views.
Obviously, I am not a fascist or a psychopath like you're acting like. What I meant is I use moral systems which give me results that line up with my views.
Thirdly this is known as a reductio ad absurdum fallacy since you're reducing my entire moral system down to ignorant levels.
Also, this analogy fails since completely redistributing peoples property no matter what the level would reduce everyone's commitment towards that society.
For instance, one trolley scenario is whether or not you'd harvest the organs from 3 people to save 10 people.
Well according to my views this would be bad since it'd ruin the society since I'm fairly certain people wouldn't show up to hospitals knowing that their organs could be ripped from them at a moments notice.
In this case there would be literally zero incentive to work harder which would thus ruin the society.
I enjoyed your arguments. You did a fine job! I would recommend specifically citing passages from an online Bible if possible. Judges get a little angsty about that.
Thanks, I am now going to do a table of contents for my argument, I am trying to improve as a debator, and this is one thing I will do
2A. You are basically saying you judge something as "good" or "bad" based on it's benefit to society as a whole and is morally consistent. In other words, you judge something as "good" or "bad" based on whether or not it's "good" or "bad" for society.
But again this begs the futher question, how you do determine the "goodness for society" (or "badness"). In other words you have action X, how do you judge if action X is "good for society" if the measure/yardstick you use is whether or not iit's "good for society"? That really doesn't make no sense. That's like saying, I"m going to judge if this action is good for me based on whether or not it's good for me.
**A good moral system should be one that's logically consistent and gives me results I like.**
This is very telling. While I agree it should be logically consistent, giving you "results you like" should not be the basis for whether or not something is good/bad, and quite honestly this should frighten the hell out of everyone around you. lol Just because you like the results should not determine if it's right or wrong, good or bad.
I would also argue that "benefiting society" should not be the basis (or at least the sole basis) for morality. I'm pretty confident that if Society says it's ok to take everything you own (AND I DO MEAN EVERYTHING) and distribute it to the rest of the society, you'd probably be the first to argue "NOT FAIR!". After all, this does benefit society-- everyone in society is just a little bit richer by your forced generosity.
1. What I mean by this is that God's morality in most religions is objective morality. If for this debate we assumed God's morality is objective and 100 % correct, no matter how much I provide to you the repulsive nature of the bible, you could just point out that it's objective and 100 % correct anyways.
If we assume it's subjective, there is room to argue that God's subjective morality is incorrect. Hope this clarifies.
2. I mean by a moral system which is a system by which you judge decisions as either morally good, bad, or neutral.
A) The system I use is whether or not the moral system benefits society as a whole and is morally consistent.
A good moral system should be one that's logically consistent and gives me results I like.
In the case of the Bible, I'll mostly be examining how it's immoral based upon basic morality.
While I and you may have different systems, we can agree on most things.
For example, I am sure we can both agree with slavery, the genocide of innocents, and sexism is immoral.
3. Whether or not the morality benefits society and if it's consistent.
I'd be interested in debating. Can you clarify:
1. **This debate is going to assume that Gods version of morality is subjective and not objective morality ** What exactly do you mean by this. are you saying that what we believe to be God's morality is actually our own subjective idea of what God's morality is? I just want to be sure.
2. WHen you use the term "moral" in "moral compass", what do you mean? Are you using "moral" in terms of "Good" or "Bad", i.e. determining something (an action) as "good" or "bad"?
a) When we judge things as "moral", we are in essence measuring them against a "standard" by which we then judge it as "good" or "bad". So the heart of your debate is basically asking "Should the Bible be used to judge actions as "good" or "bad"?". Or put another way, you are asking "Is the Bible a "good" standard to judge actions against or is it a "bad" standard?" Which begs the question, what is the standard against which you would be judging the Bible as "good" or "bad" when it comes to being a "moral compass" (standard)?
3. When judging the Bible's morailty (good or bad), what will you be measuring or comparing to as a standard, to determine if a specific passage is moral or not (i.e. good or bad)?
I was a bit vague so I clarified in the description.
Sure, though I think with a question, it could either way, I would agree that a title saying-The Bible should be used as a moral compass, and then he was con would be weird
True. I suppose I worded my comment funny. Should change "Normally I'd assume the instigator is arguing the proposition stated in the title" to "Normally I'd assume the instigator is arguing for the pro-position of the topic in the title" and same for my last sentence to change to saying something like that.
That's a good point but this is a question,
It might be a good idea to more clearly indicate you're arguing that the bible should not be used as a moral compass. Normally I'd assume the instigator is arguing the proposition stated in the title, and I read your description and context clues indicate you're arguing it is not. Not everyone will pick up on that though, but I suppose if you only want intelligent debaters that's how to do it. Still, could have someone accept who doesn't realize you're arguing against the proposition stated in the title.
I'm guessing people would have to defend both the Old and New Testaments?