Instigator / Con
7
1650
rating
44
debates
77.27%
won
Topic
#1283
Is Christianity A Good Moral System To Follow?
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 4 points ahead, the winner is...
TheRealNihilist
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
3
1435
rating
15
debates
33.33%
won
Description
-- INTRO --
This is about whether Christianity is a good moral system to follow or not. Old Testament and the New Testament will be used.
Whatever is agreed upon in the comments will be the Bible version we use.
-- STRUCTURE --
1. Opening (State your positions. No rebuttals.)
2. Rebuttals (Attempt to debunk opponents augments)
3. Rejoinders (Attempt to defend your case with the rebuttals given)
4. Rebuttals/Close (Rebuttals and conclusion)
When I say attempt. That is the bare minimum. You can do more and would help your case a lot.
-- DEBATER OBJECTIVES --
Pro - must sufficiently prove that Christianity is a good moral system while simultaneously disproving Con's arguments. (Basically Christianity is good and demonstrate it)
Con - must sufficiently prove that Christianity is a bad moral system while simultaneously disproving Pro's arguments. (Basically Christianity is bad and demonstrate it)
-- DEFINITIONS --
Christianity - the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices.
Good - to be desired or approved of.
Moral system - a system of coherent, systematic, and reasonable principles, rules, ideals, and values which work to form one's overall perspective.
Follow - act according to (an instruction or precept).
-- RULES --
1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all irresolution terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The burden of proof is shared; Pro must show why Christianity is a good moral system to follow, and Con must show why it is a bad moral system to follow. Simply rebutting one's opponent's arguments is not sufficient to win the debate.
9. Violation of any of these rules merits a loss.
Round 1
To get an idea of what a good
moral system is. I will simply give some things I would consider to be a good
one.
I'll stick to that. This might not seem like a lot but it is enough in my book to consider Christianity a bad moral system to follow.
Homosexuality
Homosexuality: is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender.
Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. I don't think I need to show Bible quotes to show this but I will. I will also mention saying homosexuality is a sin is you pretty much saying if they carry on with their lifestyle they will go to hell. So basically a Christian has openly allowed their God to punish gays in hellfire for eternity for something that could've only occurred for 40 years. The hyperlink I added before this specifically talks about gays being sentenced to an eternal fire.
Romans 1:26-27: Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.
This was a punishment from God for people worshiping idols over it. Bearing in mind it was God who gave these people the power to change their minds. If God gave them the power, why is God punishing them for something God created? If God was all-loving, then why would God allow for his creations to suffer? This clearly doesn’t make sense because God in other quotes has stated that it is all-loving but if we look at real world example of what people who love you do; it isn’t punish you for misdeeds in such an extreme way.
One example that would go in the favor of my opponent would be prison but that is minute compared to the punishment God has given. Given that you are put on trial and are being told your punishment whereas God couldn’t even muster up anything to tell you the punishment before you are dealt it. The other cases which definitely help my case is with the parent taking care of a child. A good parent when a child does wrong explains to them why they did wrong and help make an environment which reduces the chances they will do bad. If God was a parent it would be a bad one.
This not even talking about the observation of gay people. It is more likely that gay people have it ingrained in them then they choose to be gay. This is because when I am aroused I don’t choose to be aroused. It is a cause of me looking at something I find pleasing. I did choose to look at that something but didn’t choose to have that reaction. If this is true then gay people must also feel the same way. With this in mind God made a punishment that isn’t based on choice instead of a person simply pleasing their desires. This is clearly unfair because people can’t choose to not like what they like sexually and God will punish them for not having a choice in it. The punishment is eternal hellfire for something that could’ve gone for about 40-80 years.
Given that a good moral system is implied to be followed by everyone. If this was implemented in the US 3.5 percent of the population in 2011 are gay, lesbian or bisexual.
Slavery
Slavery is never really stated whether it is allowed or not. It does state how to treat your slaves. This to me means slavery is an assumption of Christianity and they are building upon that foundation.
Those who are under the yoke of slavery must regard their masters as worthy of full respect, so that the name of God and our teaching may not suffer abuse. Those whose masters are believers must not take advantage of them because they are brothers but must give better service because those who will profit from their work are believers and are beloved.
Slavery is bad because you are using human property as you wish. This goes against social norms of the US. Partly due to the law and partly due to people in the US’s perspective. I don’t think this point is going to be contested so I’ll leave it with that.
If you agree slavery is bad, then it would follow you would agree with people who own slaves are bad people. This is due to in order for someone to be human property it would require someone to own it. Without someone owning human property they are not slaves.
Slavery is not condemned anywhere in the Bible instead the Bible gives rules to people to how to treat slaves. It is like me saying I am not going to talk about how bad nuclear bombs are I am just telling you how to use them in a good way. Basically telling you how to use something bad in a good way. Bearing in mind no matter how good you treat the bad it is still a bad thing.
Women
I left the best for last. If it wasn’t clear already that Christianity is not good moral system as in attempts to make people happy then these quotes would be enlightening. Freedom can lead to happiness and given the lack of freedom women are given, women would have to find happiness in control which I don’t think is fair given men are not held to the same standard.
1 Corinthians 11:3
But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of Christ.
1 Timothy 2:11-12
A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet.
Colossians 3:18
Wives, be subordinate to your husbands, as is proper in the Lord
women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church.
Women are close to half the population. In order for half the population to be happy we should at least treat them the same as the other half. Christianity doesn’t do that instead relegate women to lack of a better term to second class citizens. Not worthy have the same rules applied to them instead applied different rules to be submissive to the other half of the population. This is bad because without equality there is unjust rulings which lead to frictions and can lead to huge civil unrest. More people involved more unrest can occur. This is bad since in order for a civilized society to be civil it would require to reduce unrest and make sure people can live with each other instead of being infuriating with one another.
Given that a good moral system is implied to be followed by everyone. If this was implemented across the world 49.5%of the population will be treated differently than the remaining number.
If people don’t realize already I didn’t speak about the Old Testament. GuitarSlinger is perfectly fine to use it. It does state “the Old Testament will be used” in the description of the debate but if GuitarSlinger does use it then I would also be forced to talk about it given I need to rebut them for my argument. My other reason is time constraints.
- Doesn't exclude people and stating they will
go to hell
- Tries to condemn wrongs in order for change to
occur to make people's live better
- Advocate for equality so that people are
treated fairly
I'll stick to that. This might not seem like a lot but it is enough in my book to consider Christianity a bad moral system to follow.
Homosexuality
Homosexuality: is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender.
Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. I don't think I need to show Bible quotes to show this but I will. I will also mention saying homosexuality is a sin is you pretty much saying if they carry on with their lifestyle they will go to hell. So basically a Christian has openly allowed their God to punish gays in hellfire for eternity for something that could've only occurred for 40 years. The hyperlink I added before this specifically talks about gays being sentenced to an eternal fire.
Romans 1:26-27: Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.
This was a punishment from God for people worshiping idols over it. Bearing in mind it was God who gave these people the power to change their minds. If God gave them the power, why is God punishing them for something God created? If God was all-loving, then why would God allow for his creations to suffer? This clearly doesn’t make sense because God in other quotes has stated that it is all-loving but if we look at real world example of what people who love you do; it isn’t punish you for misdeeds in such an extreme way.
One example that would go in the favor of my opponent would be prison but that is minute compared to the punishment God has given. Given that you are put on trial and are being told your punishment whereas God couldn’t even muster up anything to tell you the punishment before you are dealt it. The other cases which definitely help my case is with the parent taking care of a child. A good parent when a child does wrong explains to them why they did wrong and help make an environment which reduces the chances they will do bad. If God was a parent it would be a bad one.
This not even talking about the observation of gay people. It is more likely that gay people have it ingrained in them then they choose to be gay. This is because when I am aroused I don’t choose to be aroused. It is a cause of me looking at something I find pleasing. I did choose to look at that something but didn’t choose to have that reaction. If this is true then gay people must also feel the same way. With this in mind God made a punishment that isn’t based on choice instead of a person simply pleasing their desires. This is clearly unfair because people can’t choose to not like what they like sexually and God will punish them for not having a choice in it. The punishment is eternal hellfire for something that could’ve gone for about 40-80 years.
Given that a good moral system is implied to be followed by everyone. If this was implemented in the US 3.5 percent of the population in 2011 are gay, lesbian or bisexual.
Slavery
Slavery is never really stated whether it is allowed or not. It does state how to treat your slaves. This to me means slavery is an assumption of Christianity and they are building upon that foundation.
Those who are under the yoke of slavery must regard their masters as worthy of full respect, so that the name of God and our teaching may not suffer abuse. Those whose masters are believers must not take advantage of them because they are brothers but must give better service because those who will profit from their work are believers and are beloved.
Slavery is bad because you are using human property as you wish. This goes against social norms of the US. Partly due to the law and partly due to people in the US’s perspective. I don’t think this point is going to be contested so I’ll leave it with that.
If you agree slavery is bad, then it would follow you would agree with people who own slaves are bad people. This is due to in order for someone to be human property it would require someone to own it. Without someone owning human property they are not slaves.
Slavery is not condemned anywhere in the Bible instead the Bible gives rules to people to how to treat slaves. It is like me saying I am not going to talk about how bad nuclear bombs are I am just telling you how to use them in a good way. Basically telling you how to use something bad in a good way. Bearing in mind no matter how good you treat the bad it is still a bad thing.
Given that a good moral system is implied to be
followed by everyone. If this was implemented 12.5
million blacks who were would have been told to obey their masters
not to see their freedom.
Women
I left the best for last. If it wasn’t clear already that Christianity is not good moral system as in attempts to make people happy then these quotes would be enlightening. Freedom can lead to happiness and given the lack of freedom women are given, women would have to find happiness in control which I don’t think is fair given men are not held to the same standard.
1 Corinthians 11:3
But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of Christ.
1 Timothy 2:11-12
A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet.
Colossians 3:18
Wives, be subordinate to your husbands, as is proper in the Lord
women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church.
Women are close to half the population. In order for half the population to be happy we should at least treat them the same as the other half. Christianity doesn’t do that instead relegate women to lack of a better term to second class citizens. Not worthy have the same rules applied to them instead applied different rules to be submissive to the other half of the population. This is bad because without equality there is unjust rulings which lead to frictions and can lead to huge civil unrest. More people involved more unrest can occur. This is bad since in order for a civilized society to be civil it would require to reduce unrest and make sure people can live with each other instead of being infuriating with one another.
Given that a good moral system is implied to be followed by everyone. If this was implemented across the world 49.5%of the population will be treated differently than the remaining number.
If people don’t realize already I didn’t speak about the Old Testament. GuitarSlinger is perfectly fine to use it. It does state “the Old Testament will be used” in the description of the debate but if GuitarSlinger does use it then I would also be forced to talk about it given I need to rebut them for my argument. My other reason is time constraints.
1. Christianity is about following Jesus Christ,
not a book. Christ formed his Church on
earth. The Bible, as we know it, did not
“come into being” until a few centuries later. Thus, Christianity was in place before the Bible. As Acts chapter 11
points out, it was in Antioch that the Apostles were first called “Christians”:
Acts 11:26 “ For a whole year they met with the church and taught a large number of people, and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians.”
2. Followers (disciples) of Jesus Christ are called to imitate Him, His life and example (see Matthew 16:24)
3. Before you follow someone and attempt to imitate them, you must first learn about them—what they did, said, and/or taught. Jerome said “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.” Here’s what Christ said and did:
He resisted temptation - Matthew 4:1-11, Mark 1:12-13, Luke 4:1-13
He helped others - Matthew 4:23, Mark 1:29-34, 2:1-12, Mark 5:1-43, Mark 7:31-37, Luke 4:38-41, Luke 5:12-26, Luke 6-17-19, Luke 7:1-17, Luke 8:40-56, John 2:1-11, John 9:1-7
He taught about how to handle anger appropriately (Matthew 5:21-26)
He taught not to objectify women (Matthew 5:27-30)
He taught we should keep promises (Matthew 5:33-37)
He taught not to retaliate or seek revenge (Matthew 5:38-42)
He taught to love others, including enemies - Matthew 5:43-47, Luke 6:27-36
Challenged everyone to be the best version of themselves (Matthew 5:48)
Taught about how to judge others - Matthew 7:1-5, Luke 6:37-42
Summed how to treat others in one simple golden rule (Matthew 7:12)
He helped people who were sick (Matthew 8:1-22, 9:1-8, 27-31, 32-34)
He remained calm and collected while others were panicking- Matthew 8:23-27, Mark 4:35-41, Luke 8:22-25
Encouraged his follows to be strong in the midst of tribulation and difficulties– Matthew 10:26-33, 16:24, Mark 13:9-13
Encouraged those who were burdened with work and labor to see help from him – Matthew 11:28
Did his very best to serve and feed those who were less fortunate and hungry – Matthew 14:13-21, 15:32-39, Mark 6:34-44, Mark8:1-10, Luke 9:10-17, John 6:1-13
Challenged and chastised hypocrites – Matthew 15:1-9, 23:1-39
Encouraged others not to do bad things, or cause other people to do bad things – Matthew 18:6-9, Mark 9:42-48, Luke 17:1-4
Taught others that owning money and material things isn’t what life is all about – Matthew 19:16-21, Mark 10:17-23, Luke 12:15
Taught us to love and serve other people – Matthew 22:39, Mark 9:33-37, Mark 12:31, Luke 10:29-37, Luke 15:1-32, John 13:1-15, 34-35
Endured great pain with courage and fortitude – Matthew 26: 36-46, Mark 14:32-42, Luke 22:39-46, Luke 23:26-32
Encouraged non-violence – Matthew 26: 51-52
Did not retaliate or seek revenge beaten or insulted or humiliated– Matthew 26: 59-68, 27:27-31, Mark 14:53-61, Mark 15:16-20
He was obedient to his parents – Luke 2:51
Taught to forgive others – Luke 7:36-50; John 8:1-11
Encouraged others to be humble – Luke 9:48
Fostered friendship with everyone – Luke 19:1-10, John 4:4-42
Christianity is about following Jesus Christ and doing your
best to imitate his life—his example and what he did. The above are just examples of how he lived
his life, and if we measure our actions against HIS, it sets an Excellent Moral
Standard.
Acts 11:26 “ For a whole year they met with the church and taught a large number of people, and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians.”
2. Followers (disciples) of Jesus Christ are called to imitate Him, His life and example (see Matthew 16:24)
3. Before you follow someone and attempt to imitate them, you must first learn about them—what they did, said, and/or taught. Jerome said “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.” Here’s what Christ said and did:
He resisted temptation - Matthew 4:1-11, Mark 1:12-13, Luke 4:1-13
He helped others - Matthew 4:23, Mark 1:29-34, 2:1-12, Mark 5:1-43, Mark 7:31-37, Luke 4:38-41, Luke 5:12-26, Luke 6-17-19, Luke 7:1-17, Luke 8:40-56, John 2:1-11, John 9:1-7
He taught about how to handle anger appropriately (Matthew 5:21-26)
He taught not to objectify women (Matthew 5:27-30)
He taught we should keep promises (Matthew 5:33-37)
He taught not to retaliate or seek revenge (Matthew 5:38-42)
He taught to love others, including enemies - Matthew 5:43-47, Luke 6:27-36
Challenged everyone to be the best version of themselves (Matthew 5:48)
Taught about how to judge others - Matthew 7:1-5, Luke 6:37-42
Summed how to treat others in one simple golden rule (Matthew 7:12)
He helped people who were sick (Matthew 8:1-22, 9:1-8, 27-31, 32-34)
He remained calm and collected while others were panicking- Matthew 8:23-27, Mark 4:35-41, Luke 8:22-25
Encouraged his follows to be strong in the midst of tribulation and difficulties– Matthew 10:26-33, 16:24, Mark 13:9-13
Encouraged those who were burdened with work and labor to see help from him – Matthew 11:28
Did his very best to serve and feed those who were less fortunate and hungry – Matthew 14:13-21, 15:32-39, Mark 6:34-44, Mark8:1-10, Luke 9:10-17, John 6:1-13
Challenged and chastised hypocrites – Matthew 15:1-9, 23:1-39
Encouraged others not to do bad things, or cause other people to do bad things – Matthew 18:6-9, Mark 9:42-48, Luke 17:1-4
Taught others that owning money and material things isn’t what life is all about – Matthew 19:16-21, Mark 10:17-23, Luke 12:15
Taught us to love and serve other people – Matthew 22:39, Mark 9:33-37, Mark 12:31, Luke 10:29-37, Luke 15:1-32, John 13:1-15, 34-35
Endured great pain with courage and fortitude – Matthew 26: 36-46, Mark 14:32-42, Luke 22:39-46, Luke 23:26-32
Encouraged non-violence – Matthew 26: 51-52
Did not retaliate or seek revenge beaten or insulted or humiliated– Matthew 26: 59-68, 27:27-31, Mark 14:53-61, Mark 15:16-20
He was obedient to his parents – Luke 2:51
Taught to forgive others – Luke 7:36-50; John 8:1-11
Encouraged others to be humble – Luke 9:48
Fostered friendship with everyone – Luke 19:1-10, John 4:4-42
Conclusion
Round 2
I thank GuitarSlinger for responding.
He resisted temptation - Matthew 4:1-11, Mark 1:12-13, Luke 4:1-13
The sourcing is really bad so I will just lay out the quotes that you didn't nor did you explain them.
Matthew 4:11: Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.
If we look at what this is centered around as in Jesus in the wilderness we realize Jesus is delusional. He hears voices and either did or think he fasted for 40 days straight. If it wasn't clear this alone shows just how fictional the story is. The longest you can go without anything using current day data is 3 weeks yet I am supposed to believe that he went 1 month and 10 days. That is not even accounting for how long you can go without water because in the same link it states you can only go for a week. Meaning Jesus supposedly went for 33 days more than what experts today say you can go without water. That is excluding if I don't consider the 40 nights number added to my total which shows an even more exaggeration. The voices stated “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” also known as, using Occam's Razor, a voice inside his head or a delusion that had occurred for fasting for that long. Jesus answered with "One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God.” which is basically saying don't eat live off God. I thought as an axiom we had we ought to survive but guess Christianity doesn't even accept that. The devil (delusion) took Jesus to the holy city and told him “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. For it is written:
‘He will command his angels concerning you’
and ‘with their hands they will support you,
lest you dash your foot against a stone."so that you will not strike your foot against a stone." Jesus replied back "You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.”. Instead of proving that your God does care about you instead simply don't even bother testing the God that supposedly cares about its creation. This is also poor advice because if you are not even allowed to test God to know it is real how can you possibly know it is real and make a moral system with it involved? The devil took Jesus to a high mountain and stated “All this I will give you, ” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.” Jesus replied “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.". From this I can gather instead of accepting a gift and being thankful for it you should not accept it if it doesn't fit under what Christianity dictates. This is bad advice because the devil pretty much gave Jesus everything it needed. If Jesus was reasonable he would realize when he has everything he can simply as his first duty as the owner of pretty much of everything give everyone the word of God instead he simply decides to reject such a gift because he is the devil. This alone shows if a bad person does good don't accept it or bad people can't ever be changed so simply reject what they do. Both can't be true because when we look at pretty much anyone there is a cause for their bad. If as a society we can deal with the bad the person would not be influenced by that bad thing but the Bible doesn't even accept this. This can be don't be abusive to your children in order for them to not carry on with your example. Then we come to the verse my opponent picked. From this he gathered Jesus did not accept his temptation. I simply see a person who is delusional because of his lack of eating or if we agree he wasn't delusional then he gives bad advice and shouldn't be followed. Not bearing in mind how long a person can go without eating which I did state earlier. This is also bad because it pretty much contradicts when Jesus died for our sins because in this case he can simply follow the devil while also just before that making everyone alive become Christian if he knew the word of God but instead Jesus died on a cross and doesn't even have half of the population following what he wanted people to follow today.
and ‘with their hands they will support you,
lest you dash your foot against a stone."so that you will not strike your foot against a stone." Jesus replied back "You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.”. Instead of proving that your God does care about you instead simply don't even bother testing the God that supposedly cares about its creation. This is also poor advice because if you are not even allowed to test God to know it is real how can you possibly know it is real and make a moral system with it involved? The devil took Jesus to a high mountain and stated “All this I will give you, ” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.” Jesus replied “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.". From this I can gather instead of accepting a gift and being thankful for it you should not accept it if it doesn't fit under what Christianity dictates. This is bad advice because the devil pretty much gave Jesus everything it needed. If Jesus was reasonable he would realize when he has everything he can simply as his first duty as the owner of pretty much of everything give everyone the word of God instead he simply decides to reject such a gift because he is the devil. This alone shows if a bad person does good don't accept it or bad people can't ever be changed so simply reject what they do. Both can't be true because when we look at pretty much anyone there is a cause for their bad. If as a society we can deal with the bad the person would not be influenced by that bad thing but the Bible doesn't even accept this. This can be don't be abusive to your children in order for them to not carry on with your example. Then we come to the verse my opponent picked. From this he gathered Jesus did not accept his temptation. I simply see a person who is delusional because of his lack of eating or if we agree he wasn't delusional then he gives bad advice and shouldn't be followed. Not bearing in mind how long a person can go without eating which I did state earlier. This is also bad because it pretty much contradicts when Jesus died for our sins because in this case he can simply follow the devil while also just before that making everyone alive become Christian if he knew the word of God but instead Jesus died on a cross and doesn't even have half of the population following what he wanted people to follow today.
He helped others - Matthew 4:23, Mark 1:29-34, 2:1-12, Mark 5:1-43, Mark 7:31-37, Luke 4:38-41, Luke 5:12-26, Luke 6-17-19, Luke 7:1-17, Luke 8:40-56, John 2:1-11, John 9:1-7
Given how detailed my responses are I will only keep to one verse at a time. This is fair because I didn't shove 11 verses to you. The highest I went was 4 while also explaining myself whereas you didn't. You can pick whichever verse you would like as well granted they are the ones I used. Moving on:
Matthew 4:23: He went around all of Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and curing every disease and illness among the people.
This is under the same section but a different part of the link I provided earlier which I will provide here as well under Ministering to a Great Multitude. It basically states Jesus went around professing the word of God and healing people. A lot of people went to him and he cured all of them. The problem here is that nothing in this section states how to cure people instead Jesus uses his God powers to cure everyone. If his God powers can cure pretty much anyone why can't he simply duplicate himself and be everywhere across the world or have some sort of teleportation to go to everyone in need? The feat of power would alone show he is out of this world and should be enough for people to accept him but he didn't. Instead he simply waited for people to come in Syria which is only one country. So basically Christianity is a bad moral system because it doesn't show how Jesus cured them so it isn't repeatable nor does it state why Jesus didn't just go around everywhere to save people since from what was stated he was able to cure lunatics which I don't think today modern day doctors can completely cure bearing in mind doctors today have much better equipment.
He taught about how to handle anger appropriately (Matthew 5:21-26)
Matthew 5:21: “You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment."
This is basically a section here. Teaching about anger under the section Teaching About Anger. This verse shows it doesn't state how to handle anger appropriately instead say if you don't handle anger you will go to fiery and Gehenna and some awful version of the American judicial system. "But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna." This clearly doesn't state how to handle anger instead states you will be punished for being being angry at your brother. Doesn't state whether there is justifiable anger or how to handle with it so my opponent is making a false claim about a quote unless of course punishing someone is handling anger. I would like to hear him say it before I decide to argue that point. This quote: "Settle with your opponent quickly while on the way to court with him. Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison." states if you are angry at the court you have basically lost the case. The most simple reason that can be used is that because you are angry you will lose the case and be sent to prison. This of course doesn't make any sense because I can be completely furious in a court case but if I have the evidence and a good judge interpreting a fair rules fairly then I win. This of course does go against American judicial system because your conduct doesn't result in a person losing a case instead would just show how heated you are but can lead to some sort of sentencing that wouldn't be specifically about the court case in hand. This goes to show again Christianity is a bad moral system to follow because it doesn't know how a court case works and thinks punishment leads to people knowing how to handle anger.
He taught not to objectify women (Matthew 5:27-30)
Matthew 5:27: “You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery."
This section here is about adultery under the Teaching About Adultery part. This basically states don't cheat on your significant other. Don't think of another women in a pleasing way and completely remove your eyes if you are pleased by a look of a women while also removing your masturbation hand if you decide masturbate. This is ludicrous because if this system was followed every single man would be blind and without hands. Even though not looking at the women with lust is a form of objectification if it is done in a pleasant way by having no one harmed then it should be okay. Even though this is the only point which I consider to be my opponent to be correct on the other verses around this said quote just goes to show how barbaric their practices and distinct to the modern day Christianity even though they supposedly are following in the teachings of Jesus.
Conclusion
I think I have clearly laid out how Christianity is a bad moral system to follow by simply reading out the verses my opponent chose while also adding in commentary. I am leaving it here because I don't have the time nor do I think my point to come across is required to rebut all claims provided because my opponent simply listed out claims without explaining them. I on the other hand had less claims while also have 300% more explanations. Sorry about my time constraints while also not rebutting the other verses are required to bolster my point.
Over to you GuitarSlinger
Will play Devil's Advocate here.
- My opponent cites passages from a text, but doesn't show that HIS interpretation are actually what "Christianity" teaches. His first reference is a passage from a letter from a person named "Jude"-- the passage he refers to makes no mention of Jesus Christ, his teachings or the teaching of Christianity. Likewise, his 2nd reference is a passage from a letter from some guy named "Paul" to people living in Rome-- again, it makes no mention of Jesus Christ, his teachings, or the teaching of Christianity. For all we know, these could be teachings of some guy named Paul to some folks in Rome, and not actually of Jesus Christ-- my opponent hasn't shown otherwise. Likewise, subsequent passages are from letters from same guy named Paul, and these are letters to a guy named Timothy, some people living in Corinth and some people living in Colossus. Only one of these passages, the one from 1 Corinthians 11:3 makes mention of Christ. My opponent has not shown that the other passages are actually teachings of Jesus Christ and Christianity itself, so until he does, we should discard his opinion/interpretation-- for all we know these could just be teachings of two guys named Paul and Jude, and not of Jesus Christ himself. I will focus on the passage that DOES reference Christ below
- 1 Corinthians 11:3 does in fact mention Jesus Christ. That one passage alone doesn't degrade or denigrate women, as my opponent seems be implying. Any unit, be it a school, a government, a club, an agency, a company, etc needs a leader, and that is all the passage is implying-- that the family unit needs a leader and the leader is the man.
In short, my opponent has done nothing to show that his interpretations of said passages are actually what Jesus Christ taught and/or what Christianity teaches.
Response to my opponents rebuttal:
His critique of Mathew 4:11
- He doesn't know for a fact that Jesus "was delusional" and "just heard voices" and couldn't fast for 40 days. He simply adheres to that belief because HE himself, TheRealNihilist, a mere mortal human, is unable to do it. His belief is already cemented that Jesus was just a mere mortal, and thus could not do the things written. His belief is already built on the assumption that Jesus do it, but he hasn't shown or proven that his belief is correct. I'm sorry, just because my opponent things Jesus was delusional does prove he was delusional-- for all we know, my opponent could very well believe MLK was delusional and Manson was sane-- my opponent hasn't shown how/why HIS belief is correct.
- My opponent offers all sorts of interpretations of this passage, but again-- how do we know my opponent is interpreting the passage correctly? For all we know, he could be a person that things "Horton" from "Horton Hears a Who" is real and that MLK's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" is a work of fiction. My opponent hasn't shown that his interpretation of this passage is in fact a valid way worthy to be believed-- it is simply his opinion.
His critique of Mathew 4:23
- My opponent things this passage is meant to be a scientific treatise or medical explanation on how to cure people (notice how he states it doesn't say "how" to cure people). The point of the passage is, we are meant to try and help people, as Jesus did. My opponent seems to imply that Jesus CAN'T duplicte himself or teleport-- how does he know He can't? Maybe there is some other reason why Jesus wants PEOPLE to help others? As a parent, I certainly understand this-- I want my kids to grow and learn how to help people-- I don't want them to be selfish and expect SOMEONE ELSE to lend a helping hand.
His critique of Matthew 5:21
- My opponent makes the age-old mistake of cherry picking one sentence (5:21) and ignoring what the rest of the passage says. I refer to 5:21-26, but notice how my opponent ignores verses 22-26. The passage clearly lays out what to do when you are angry with someone-- settle with your opponent and work to be reconciled with them (see 5:22-26). Each situation involving anger is going to different, so it's not a play-by-play insturction manual on how to resolve anger in every situation, but it generalizes and says he party should work toward reconciliation.
His critique of Matthew 5:27
- First, I have to ask-- why is my opponent interpreting this passage literally? Jesus uses the image of "cutting off one's hand" or "plucking the eye out" as hyperboles to underscore the serious. As a father of two daughters, I really don't want any guy thinking or looking at them with lust. My opponent may think it's "harmless' (most folks who engage in something that is harmful don't think what they do is harmful), but how one views or sees someone does indeed effect how they are and how they treat others. While on the surface, there may be no physical harm being done, but my opponent is foolish to think that viewing people (namely women) as objects for his personal gratification is harmless-- it slowly, sometimes not so slowly, starts to taint how one views and treats women. Interesting, my opponent, in his initial arguments seems to be a "champion for women", but yet is very quick to excuse the objectification of women for one's own personal pleasure.
In closing, my opponent has not shown that what he explains or describes are actually what Jesus Christ taught or what Christianity teaches. Of all the Bible passages he cites, only one makes reference to Jesus Christ. His failure to show that this is indeed exactly what Jesus Christ and/or Christianity teaches leads us to believe that this is simply his understanding of what Jesus Christ taught. Not knowing my opponents depth of knowledge, I'm reluctant to believe, and you should be too, that HIS interpretation or understanding Jesus Christ, the Bible, and/or Christianity is true. Many people have parsed "Mein Kampf", cherry picked sentences here and there, in order to promote the idea that Hitler "wasn't so bad". Likewise, my opponent cherry picks passages in order to support his belief that Christianity is "bad"
Round 3
My opponent cites passages from a text, but doesn't show that HIS interpretation are actually what "Christianity" teaches.
Whether
or not this is what people decide to do is irrelevant. This is about if someone
actually followed that the Bible not the bastardization of the different sects.
I am perfectly happy to concede this because this doesn't actually get you
anywhere. Christianity has a problem with sects. I am simply setting the most
reasonable answers not what people make up to suite their narrative that
doesn't go in line with current best standards as in what conforms with reality
not whether or a specific idea conforms with my ideology.
His first reference is a passage from a letter from a person named "Jude"-- the passage he refers to makes no mention of Jesus Christ, his teachings or the teaching of Christianity.
Is
Christianity primarily followed by the Bible? Where was that quote from? I rest
my case. This is semantics to a point that doesn't even matter when the only
actual way of knowing anything about Christianity is through the Bible yet he is
arguing no this isn't what this debate is about because it doesn't mention
Jesus. Well it is in the Bible and Christianity does follow the Bible.
Likewise, his 2nd reference is a passage from a letter from some guy named "Paul" to people living in Rome-- again, it makes no mention of Jesus Christ, his teachings, or the teaching of Christianity.
My
objection above can be used here.
For all we know, these could be teachings of some guy named Paul to some folks in Rome, and not actually of Jesus Christ-- my opponent hasn't shown otherwise.
This is
about Christianity which its adherence's use the Bible to profess their
teachings.
Likewise, subsequent passages are from letters from same guy named Paul, and these are letters to a guy named Timothy, some people living in Corinth and some people living in Colossus. Only one of these passages, the one from 1 Corinthians 11:3 makes mention of Christ. My opponent has not shown that the other passages are actually teachings of Jesus Christ and Christianity itself, so until he does, we should discard his opinion/interpretation-- for all we know these could just be teachings of two guys named Paul and Jude, and not of Jesus Christ himself. I will focus on the passage that DOES reference Christ below
The
argument being made here is that since Christ isn't mentioned it doesn't count
as objections. The problem here is that it is in the Bible and Christians
follow the Bible. So basically my opponent has an objection to the very thing
that makes people Christian. This is bad because without the Bible there is no
Christianity. Given this is a book gifted from God my opponent would have to
admit something that God wanted to give is useless or realize what he is saying
is ludicrous given what he is dismissing is in the Bible.
2.
2.
Corinthians 11:3 does in fact mention Jesus Christ. That one passage alone doesn't degrade or denigrate women, as my opponent seems be implying. Any unit, be it a school, a government, a club, an agency, a company, etc needs a leader, and that is all the passage is implying-- that the family unit needs a leader and the leader is the man.
At one
point you say anything requires some sort of primary authority as a motte then
switched to the family requiring a man to be the primary authority as the bailey.
If it wasn't clear my opponent stated a really obvious claim that there is a
need for authority then decides to use essentially a truism to give the readers
a better view of women being lower then men. These are two distinct ideas
masqueraded as being similar. The reason why they are not similar is that at
one side it states there is a need for an authority but on another they are
saying it is a man. These are two different things unless of course my opponent
would state authority = man which shows inequality between women and men and
why Christianity is bad to follow given simply following US Law is much better.
A women can't be stopped for being a leader for being a women because that is against
the law even
as back as 1964.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey
In short, my opponent has done nothing to show that his interpretations of said passages are actually what Jesus Christ taught and/or what Christianity teaches.
If a
simple sentence that man is on top of women cannot be interpreted in one way
then you are arguing against the very foundation of how we use words. We use
words to communicate our ideas. We speak the same so that we both understand
what we are saying. In order for this to work we both would have to be saying
the same thing. My opponent is arguing that even though we use the same
definitions and you agree but not arguing against what I mean by words you are
simply cherry-picking this select case showing the contradiction of what you
stated. You agree with what I said but you disagree with what I said. Saying
Jesus said things in one way and when I point out a simple thing. You simply
state well Jesus might not have said it this way. How can this be the case if
we are using the same words and we agreed on the words? If you use the argument
well words get lost in translation then why is the Bible even translated in the
first place? Doesn't this go into my favor because if words get lost in
translation most of the Bible volumes are actually a bad misrepresentation of
the Bible so Christianity is a bad moral system to follow because we can't even
begin to talk about Christianity because there are more defunct way of reading
it out there then the actual way of reading it.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/299402/preferred-bible-version-usa/
Response to my opponents rebuttal:
His critique of my critique of Mathew 4:11
1.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/299402/preferred-bible-version-usa/
Response to my opponents rebuttal:
His critique of my critique of Mathew 4:11
1.
He doesn't know for a fact that Jesus "was delusional" and "just heard voices" and couldn't fast for 40 days.
Using
Occam's Razor I pointed to the most likely outcome. Jesus is delusional if he
thought he could survive for that long. Nothing with what we know would state
he can go for that long.
He simply adheres to that belief because HE himself, TheRealNihilist, a mere mortal human, is unable to do it.
So
basically since my information is taken as a belief now? If this is the stance
he takes he should also agree when I say for him to take the counter position
he also beliefs that. We couldn't go anywhere and this entire conversation is
for naught. Given this isn't a compelling argument for you being right all this
can do is negate my argument. This doesn't do that either because I supported
my claim with evidence. Evidence is not belief because no matter how much I
believe I can't simply change what is. A chair would always be a chair even if
I want it to be a Jacuzzi.
His belief is already cemented that Jesus was just a mere mortal, and thus could not do the things written. His belief is already built on the assumption that Jesus do it, but he hasn't shown or proven that his belief is correct.
This is
clearly a truism. Jesus has got to be a human because he was birth by a woman
and impregnated by a man. That is all I need to conclude this and this is the
most reasonable answer because I have a ton of evidence to state that humans
are born. Here is a clipexplaining simple concepts.
I'm sorry, just because my opponent things Jesus was delusional does prove he was delusional-- for all we know, my opponent could very well believe MLK was delusional and Manson was sane-- my opponent hasn't shown how/why HIS belief is correct.
I have clearly shown the most reasonable answer. Given the evidence that supports fasting of 40 days. There is none but there is evidence to support that a person can fast for 3 weeks. That is all I need to demonstrate why delusion is the most reasonable conclusion.
2.
I'm sorry, just because my opponent things Jesus was delusional does prove he was delusional-- for all we know, my opponent could very well believe MLK was delusional and Manson was sane-- my opponent hasn't shown how/why HIS belief is correct.
I have clearly shown the most reasonable answer. Given the evidence that supports fasting of 40 days. There is none but there is evidence to support that a person can fast for 3 weeks. That is all I need to demonstrate why delusion is the most reasonable conclusion.
2.
My opponent offers all sorts of interpretations of this passage, but again-- how do we know my opponent is interpreting the passage correctly? For all we know, he could be a person that things "Horton" from "Horton Hears a Who" is real and that MLK's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" is a work of fiction. My opponent hasn't shown that his interpretation of this passage is in fact a valid way worthy to be believed-- it is simply his opinion.
Instead
of actually rebutting my claims he simply takes the position to say well how
could we know for sure. That ultimate skeptic position. I hope this is neither
convincing or even worth being informative whatsoever. Given the lack of
argument against my position and some weird appeal to MLK has shown what my
opponent hasn't done, which is not discredit my position.
His critique of my critique of Mathew 4:23
1.
His critique of my critique of Mathew 4:23
1.
My opponent things this passage is meant to be a scientific treatise or medical explanation on how to cure people (notice how he states it doesn't say "how" to cure people). The point of the passage is, we are meant to try and help people, as Jesus did.
The point
of that was to show Jesus is helping people which is useless because how are we
supposed to use that to help others? Simply go on belief and hope that would be
enough to treat people with cancer? It doesn't work. What would've been better
is to show a step by step process on how to identify and solve problems. The
Bible doesn't do that nor does God think it is necessary to find the most
effective way to help people.
My opponent seems to imply that Jesus CAN'T duplicte himself or teleport-- how does he know He can't? Maybe there is some other reason why Jesus wants PEOPLE to help others? As a parent, I certainly understand this-- I want my kids to grow and learn how to help people-- I don't want them to be selfish and expect SOMEONE ELSE to lend a helping hand.
So
basically what I am gathering is that Jesus thought it was a better idea to
simply walk around Syria instead of duplicating himself in every region? This
defies Jesus' caring which is outlined in the verses. The more simple answer
would be that Jesus can't duplicate himself which would mean it won't defy
Jesus' caring attitude instead show he is restricted.
Your argument Jesus wanting to help others falls flat because if I cared about people I would like to share my gifts to others in order for them to help others as well. Turns out Jesus did not teach how to help the needy instead simply helped people and made them reliant on him. Faith isn't a cure. It is simply an irrational thing to value when trying to help people. A doctor doesn't rely on faith to commit to practices. He goes on what works which is found out by his countless training. Doctors often time give advice in order to prevent certain things while also administering things required not stating come back again when the exact same problem happens. All Jesus did was help them (if we go by that being true). He didn't put in place a thing which makes sure they are not sick later on nor even present something for people to read about in the Bible. Faith doesn't cure sick. It is medicine. Medicine is used and found by doctors. Not by people who walk around and we are led only by belief that he did help people.
His critique of my critique of Mathew 5:21
1.
Your argument Jesus wanting to help others falls flat because if I cared about people I would like to share my gifts to others in order for them to help others as well. Turns out Jesus did not teach how to help the needy instead simply helped people and made them reliant on him. Faith isn't a cure. It is simply an irrational thing to value when trying to help people. A doctor doesn't rely on faith to commit to practices. He goes on what works which is found out by his countless training. Doctors often time give advice in order to prevent certain things while also administering things required not stating come back again when the exact same problem happens. All Jesus did was help them (if we go by that being true). He didn't put in place a thing which makes sure they are not sick later on nor even present something for people to read about in the Bible. Faith doesn't cure sick. It is medicine. Medicine is used and found by doctors. Not by people who walk around and we are led only by belief that he did help people.
His critique of my critique of Mathew 5:21
1.
My opponent makes the age-old mistake of cherry picking one sentence (5:21) and ignoring what the rest of the passage says. I refer to 5:21-26, but notice how my opponent ignores verses 22-26. The passage clearly lays out what to do when you are angry with someone-- settle with your opponent and work to be reconciled with them (see 5:22-26).
Did you
even read what I just typed? This has got to be proof of it. Please read
through my response again. This is the quote from verse 22 "But I say to
you, whoever is angry[r] with his brother will be
liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be
answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to
fiery Gehenna." Now simply Ctrl+F and type in But I say to you. Note that
I did speak about this verse. He only has a point with the verses that were not
informative that I didn't mention. One was verse 26 "Amen, I say to you,
you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.". I did not
talk about it mainly due to time constraints. Even if I simply added that in
the same problems would apply. That is not how the judicial system works. I
have already stated the grievances in my argument in the last round yet instead
of actually arguing against the ideas. That doesn't make my point invalid and
you haven't demonstrated it. If the last quote stated laws are at the whim of
the powerful and they choose what is or isn't permissible but it doesn't say
that.
This is not even beginning to mention the amount he expected to argue against even though the little verses I used. I explained, actually linked my sources and used claims. You did none of them apart from stating the verse. Instead of actually doing what I did you gish gallop and expect me to have an answer for every single verse. The problem here is that you didn't even put in the effort to explain your verses. I was supposed to guess what you argument was for those verses and you have a problem with me interpreting it the way I did even though you didn't even give your interpretation.
His critique of my critique of Mathew 5:27
1.
This is not even beginning to mention the amount he expected to argue against even though the little verses I used. I explained, actually linked my sources and used claims. You did none of them apart from stating the verse. Instead of actually doing what I did you gish gallop and expect me to have an answer for every single verse. The problem here is that you didn't even put in the effort to explain your verses. I was supposed to guess what you argument was for those verses and you have a problem with me interpreting it the way I did even though you didn't even give your interpretation.
His critique of my critique of Mathew 5:27
1.
First, I have to ask-- why is my opponent interpreting this passage literally?
So the
person who didn't give his interpretation is having a problem when I am filling
the gaps where he had the chance to do so but didn't? The problem with the
Bible having both literal and not literal verses is that it makes it lack the
credibility. Given that there is no way to actually know whether or not the
verse is literal or not. I am happy the state the Bible is a fictional book but
it would only help my case. People have a better time relating things much
closer to reality because it is easier to link it to a specific occurrence in
their life. The less real it looks or reads the less likely people can simply
relate that back to what they do in their daily life or realize what they
could've done better.
Jesus uses the image of "cutting off one's hand" or "plucking the eye out" as hyperboles to underscore the serious.
You don't
know that and you have no way of proving that. Please tell me the difference
between the Bible stating this and the Quran
stating the same thing. You can't and if you do it will only open you open for a clear special
pleading fallacy along with other fallacies I haven't called you out for. The
better of doing this is to have a position on the book. It is fiction or non-fiction.
If you choose non-ficiton you can actually contest the argument at hand because
we are arguing whether or not it is a good moral system to follow. With fiction
things apply on different levels as in murder is permissible like in the Purge or high doses of radiation is
natural like in the Fallout games.They follow different rules so
the conclusions would be based on those different rules.
As a father of two daughters, I really don't want any guy thinking or looking at them with lust.
Your
parenting goes to show the problem with Christianity. Instead of actually
wanting to embrace them for their life choices. You are actively suppressing
what they want to conform to what you want. You are basically disregarding
their freedom for your freedom to ruin their lives. You are an awful person if
you commit to suppressing the freedom of your daughters whenever they are able
to make efforts to do what they like just because it doesn't go in line with
your purity tests.
This is also an anecdote so even if I failed to show how my opponent is wrong he has only stated his personal belief nothing else. Basically a non-sequitur.
This is also an anecdote so even if I failed to show how my opponent is wrong he has only stated his personal belief nothing else. Basically a non-sequitur.
My opponent may think it's "harmless' (most folks who engage in something that is harmful don't think what they do is harmful), but how one views or sees someone does indeed effect how they are and how they treat others.
Yes,
which is why you are against giving your daughters the right to choose who can
and can't engage in consensual actions of lust.
While on the surface, there may be no physical harm being done, but my opponent is foolish to think that viewing people (namely women) as objects for his personal gratification is harmless-- it slowly, sometimes not so slowly, starts to taint how one views and treats women.
Seeing
people as attractive isn't demeaning. It is simply showing appreciation if
expressed as words or actions which the person finds happy. You are not even
okay with that given you want to stop people to even show affections of
lust.
Interesting, my opponent, in his initial arguments seems to be a "champion for women", but yet is very quick to excuse the objectification of women for one's own personal pleasure.
Not like
my opponent I realize there is a difference between consensual acts of appreciation
to harassment and rape.
To summarize,
My opponent failed to state the problems with my arguments that I didn't sufficiently address. That is the best case scenario. The other cases are my opponent being fallacious (motte and bailey), cherry-picking and taking an ultimate skeptic approach which doesn't make his argument sound convincing.
Over to you GuitarSlinger
To summarize,
My opponent failed to state the problems with my arguments that I didn't sufficiently address. That is the best case scenario. The other cases are my opponent being fallacious (motte and bailey), cherry-picking and taking an ultimate skeptic approach which doesn't make his argument sound convincing.
Over to you GuitarSlinger
Forfeited
Round 4
To summarize I think I have done enough and rebuttals still stand because of my opponents forfeit.
Thanks to GuitarSlinger for participating. Shame about the forfeit.
Over to the voting period.
Forfeited
Unless you quoted me a key the Bible fails to be clear on whether it is fictional or non-fictional.
Just realized you were talking about my arguments. Well I don't think I will read it but thank you for giving it anyway. Mainly because I can start an argument from your links and then this would be a debate in the comment. Don't really want that to happen.
1 Timothy 2:12 is Paul was responding to a heresy. And 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is Paul quoiting something that the Corinthians said to him, which he then refutes. I suggest you read Daniel Wallace's work on this. As for slavery, I suggest you read Exodus 21:16, and Ephesians 6:9.
If the Bible wasn't strictly fiction or non-fiction then how do you know parts which apply to other side?
The person is basically a claim that something without having any referance in the book. It is not has a key to state blue writing is fiction whereas black is non-fiction.
Regarding Jesus' talk of thought crime and dismemberment for imagined sins... Dismissing his words as hyperbole he did not mean for anyone to take seriously, risks the coherence factor in following his teachings as a moral system. On the other hand (pun intended), following the letter of his word would be dangerous and stupid; about like if followers of Islam were to actually riot over cartoonist renderings.
Part of the problem is that in both cases, either are not simply one moral system, but each a spectrum with different focuses and interpretations (arguably they are both parts of the same spectrum within Abrahamic faith...).
"1 Timothy 2:11-12"
Paul was responding to a heresy btw.
Liked the new one.
curious...why the name change?
I'll make one after this or maybe during this one. Depends on time.
Welp I was too busy
done
I accept using NABRE.
Do you want to accept now?
Okay.
I'll add Old Testament as well.
If I were to accept this debate, I would insist on the following:
1. Use of the New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE) found at www.usscb.org/bible. THe KJV is lacking in several key books of the OT. And since the early Christians only used the OT, it's important which version you use.
2. Must also use the Old Testament, and not just the New Testament. "Christianity" is about a person, namely "Jesus Christ" and following Him (which you properly defined), and not about "book". The first Christians practiced Christianity-- they were followers of Christ. The NT wasn't even written at that time-- the only Scriptures the early Christians had to follow was the OT.
Lay out your preferred Bible version.
I'll change the description to say whatever is accepted would be used.
Is the KJV the authority on Christianity? Why or why not?
Why would you opt to use that Bible version?
So?